SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11146

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Afsar Khan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 11131/2021



Advocates:
0,Advocate General

##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

WRIT PETITION No.11131 OF 2021

AFSAR KHAN PATHAN

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Mayank Sapre– learned counsel with Shri Vineet- learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Shri N.K. Gupta – learned Government Advocate for the State.

Reserved on : 11/12/2025

Delivered on : 22/12/2025

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated

21/02/2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby his claim for counting his

services from the date of permanent classification has been rejected by

the respondents. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents

to comply with order dated 31/05/2001 passed by the Labour Court

with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the

petitioner was initially appointed as Apprentice on the post of Diploma

Holder Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department. A copy of

order dated 30/10/1989 in this regard has been brought on record as

Annexure- P/4. A perusal of this order shows that his appointment was

##PAGE2##

2

for a period of one year only.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was discharged from

service w.e.f. 24/10/1995 vide communication dated 25/09/1995.

Challenging the same, he approached the Labour Court No.3, Gwalior.

He also raised a claim for permanent classification on the post of Sub-

Engineer in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The Labour

Court vide order 31/05/2001 (Annexure-P/5) set-aside the

communication dated 25/09/1995 and directed for permanent

classification of the petitioner w.e.f. 10/01/1990 alongwith increments.

The order passed by the Labour Court was put to challenge by the

respondents by filing an appeal before the Industrial Court which was

also dismissed vide order 05/12/2002 (Annexure-P/6). The order of

Labour Court as also that of Industrial Court was unsuccessfully

challenged by the respondents in W.P. No.1041/2008 before this Court

which was dismissed vide order dated 15/12/2010 (Annexure- P/8).

Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court attained finality.

4. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending before this Court,

respondents passed the order dated 03/03/1995 whereby the petitioner

was permanently classified on the post of Sub-Engineer

w.e.f.07/09/1990. A note appended to this order states that the

petitioner shall not be entitled to any facility as is given to the

employees working in regular/work-charged establishment.

Pertinently, this order was not passed in compliance with Labour

Court order. Infact, it appears to have been passed in view of certain

order, dated 14/06/2002, passed by this Court in W.P. No.894/2002

filed by the Nirman Karmchari Vyavsay Sangh Gwalior. This was

##PAGE3##

3

independent of the direction of Labour Court. The petitioner

admittedly did not challenge this order and thus, availed the benefit of

permanent classification as is given vide order dated 03/03/1995.

5. Subsequently, vide order dated 13/10/2009 (Annexure- P/9), the

petitioner was regularized on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in

regular pay band with permissible dearness allowance from time to

time. This appointment was on probation for a period of two years. It

is worth noting here that this order was passed in view of the policy

decision taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to regularize

the persons working on daily wages. The regularization was made

based upon a combined limited written examination conducted by the

State Government in the year 2008. Clause 3, 4, 7 & 8 of this order are

relevant for decision of this case and are therefore, reproduced

hereunder:-

“3. द(cid:2)न(cid:4)क व(cid:8)त(cid:4) भ(cid:11)ग(cid:13) करच(cid:15) (cid:17)र(cid:19)य(cid:21) द(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:17) शपथ पत र(cid:27) द(cid:28) गई ज(cid:17)(cid:4)क(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:28) कक उन" (cid:21)(cid:4) (cid:8) श(cid:17)स(cid:4) क(cid:8)

ववरद न(cid:4)यनरत(cid:13)क(cid:19)ण स(cid:8) स(ब(न*त क(cid:11)ई व(cid:17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top