IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 6344 of 2020

MANOHAR LAL VERMA

Versus

STATE OF M.P. THROUGH TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND

KAUSHAL VIKAS AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT AND

OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Harish Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Raghav Srivastav -GA for the respondents/State.

Reserved on: 03.12.2025.

Post on: 06.01.2026.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER terminated vide order dated 17/07/2000, which termination was challenged before the Labour Court in I.D. Reference No.36/01. The Labour Court, vide award dated 16/06/2004 published on 27/07/2004, set aside the termination order as illegal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking quashment of the communication dated 23/07/2019 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that the

petitioner is a contract employee.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement dated 10/09/1997 was issued for appointment to the vacant post of Training Officer Grade-III, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and was appointed as a daily wager on the post of Training Officer (Welder) in Industrial Training Institute, Beora, District Rajgarh. The petitioner further submits that his services were

3. It is further the case of the petitioners that the award dated 16/06/2004 passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the State Government by filing W.P. No.12789/2004 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed, and consequently, the award passed by the Labour Court attained finality. The petitioner submits that thereafter he continued to work with the respondents and discharged his duties uninterruptedly. According to the petitioner, the finality of the award and continuation of service strengthen his claim for regularisation. The petitioner asserts that his status as a daily wager stood affirmed by judicial orders.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that since the petitioner had worked as a daily wager for several years, he was entitled to be considered for regularisation. In this regard, the petitioner, along with another employee, filed W.P. No.751/2013 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 17/01/2014, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation and directing the respondents to consider the same in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the relevant executive instructions dated 08.02.2008 and 06/09/2008. It was also directed that benefits of additional emoluments be considered if the petitioner had completed 10/20 years of service as a daily wager.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the order dated 17/01/2014, he submitted a representation, which was rejected by order dated 05/06/2014 on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of service as on 10/04/2006 and that no executive instructions existed for regularising employees who completed 10 years of service after the said date. The petitioner further submits that subsequently the State Government issued a GAD circular dated 29/09/2014 clarifying that even those daily wage employees who were working pursuant to interim orders or final court orders would be considered for regularisation subject to the condition that such orders had attained finality. The petitioner asserts that his case squarely falls within the ambit of the said circular.

6. It is lastly the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the aforesaid circular, respondent No.1 sought details of daily wage employee vide communication dated 27/02/2019, and respondent No.2 als