IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 97 of 2024 GOVIND DAS NAPIT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vishal Pateriya - Advocate for the appellant.

Dr. S.S. Chouhan Ga appeared for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The present appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28498 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant, in short, is that vide order dated

05.08.1997, the Joint Director, Education Department, District Tikamgarh, granted permission to engage a part-time employee in a newly opened school to discharge the duties of Peon. In furtherance of the aforesaid permission, 14 part-time peons inclding the writ petitioner, were appointed on 09.12.1997 as part time peon on a fixed pay scale of Rs.300/- per month. The petitioner was posted in the Government Middle School, Ubaura District Niwari (MP).

3. The petitioner joined and started discharging the duties. From time to time, he was deputed for election duties. The Finance Department came up with a circular dated 10.02.2008, enhancing the salary payable to the part- time clerk, peon and sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to Rs.1500/-, Rs.1200/- and Rs.500/- respectively. The appellant submitted a representation that he had completed 24 years of service and is getting only Rs.5000/- per month, which is not sufficient to maintain the family; therefore, he should be regularised into the service. When the aforesaid representation was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 28498 of 2023 before this court. The writ petition was dismissed in limine without notice to the respondents, as the appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal in the light of judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC, State of MP Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, Siraj Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No. 9412 of 2019) and State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others (2010) 9 SCC 247, hence this writ appeal before this court.

4. Vide order dated 13.02.2025, notices were issued, and the respondents were directed to file a reply. The respondents have filed a reply to support the impugned order passed by the writ court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court in its recent judgment, Rakesh Kumar Charmakar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others reported as 2025 INSC 136 has upheld the order passed by the writ court and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this court by holding that part-time employees are entitled to get the salaries of the regular pay scale. The Apex Court has also held that the Division Bench of this Court erred in distinguishing the case of Ram Naresh Prajapati and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, in which Ram Naresh Prajapati's, Writ Petition No. 9827 of 2012 was allowed by the writ court, against which W.A. No. 197 of 2015 was filed, which was dismissed on 21.03.2017. Thereafter, the State approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No.915 of 2018. which was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2018. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, Rakesh Kumar Charmakar and others approached this court by way of W.P. No. 10434 of 2018. Vide order dated 12.07.2019, the writ petition was allowed by giving a direction to extend the benefit of the circular dated

10.05.1984. The operative part is reproduced herein below as under:-

"The Single Judge of the High court allowed the Writ petition by order dated 12.07.2019. It concluded that petitioners were recruited pursuant to Special Recruitment Drive, against the vacant posts. Drawing similarity with the facts in Ram Naresh Prajapati, the Single Judge denied the claim of the State that