IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 20753 of 2018 PRADEEP SINGH CHOUHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.K. Verma - Senior Advocate with Ms.Shalinee Mishra -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anshuman Swamy - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) Direct the respondent authorities to consider the period of service of the petitioner from 30.11.1994 to 31.3.2002 for the grant of seniority, Kramonnati /time scale of pay/ increments.

ii) Any other relief/ order or direction, as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances on the case in the interest of justice may also be passed along with cost of the proceedings.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents on account of giving fresh appointment in the year 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been given appointment in the year 2005 and petitioner has been left out deliberately, which caused him financial hardship as well as discrimination in the service. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed by order dated 30.11.1994, annexure P-1, on compassionate basis temporarily, however, in the regular establishment. Admittedly, the petitioner continuously served till 2002, which also finds mention in the fresh appointment order dated 28.6.2017. The respondent department had announced a policy in regard to Salesman of the Excise Department for their absorption. Other similarly situated persons have been absorbed in the regular establishment in the year 2005. However, it is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has been left out, which is also mentioned in the order dated 28.6.2017. The petitioner was constrained to file writ petition W.P.No.18381/2012 before this Court. After due persuasion of the department, the said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2016, whereby this Court had directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner, considering the cases of the identically situated persons. Thereafter, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been given appointment vide order dated 28.6.2017. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for the relief in regard to service benefits like grant of seniority, Krammonati/time-scale of pay/ increments of the period 30.11.1994 to 31.3.2002.

3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that as a petitioner has been given fresh appointment vide order dated 28.6.2017, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit retrospectively. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged any of the conditions of appointment, which has been issued vide order dated 28.6.2017, according to which, the petitioner has been given appointment with effect from his joining. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the seniority list of the same cadre in the petition and in absence of such challenge, the petitioner cannot be placed above those persons who have been appointed in the interregnum period from 2005-2017. It is further submitted that if the relief of seniority to the petitioner is granted then whole seniority list will be disturbed, which is not permissible under the law. However, it has been submitted that in the order itself, it is mentioned that petitioner's case has been considered for fresh appointment in compliance of the direction issued by this Court considering the period he has served with the Department from 1994 to 2002 and also the policy announced for the surplus Salesman of the Department and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is no