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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 28^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 11415 of 2018 MOHD. SHAMIM AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lavanya Verma, Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

WRIT PETITION No. 18436 of 2017 ARUN THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kaustubh Shanker Jha - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

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

WRIT PETITION No. 20072 of 2017 VILAS KALE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddhant Jain, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

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

WRIT PETITION No. 20158 of 2017 MUKESH KASHIV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddhant Jain, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

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

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal, As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are heard and decided concomitantly by this common order. References to annexures and documents are taken from W.P. No. 11415 of 2018 for convenience.

2. That, petitioners by way of the instant writ petition are challenging the impugned order/s dated 28.10.2017 issued by the respondents whereby petitioners have been removed from service on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the Establishment of the respondent No.3 has been found to be contrary to the procedure provided for such appointment, hence illegal. It is further stated in the order action of removal from service has been in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.198/99, Mansukh Lal Saraf Vs Arun Kumar Tiwari &

Others. It is found proper to remove the petitioners from service.

3. Facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that the fathers of the petitioners were working in the establishment of the respondent No. 3 and sought voluntary retirement for personal reasons, including their health condition under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in the year 1995. Father/s of petitioners also requested for considering their son/ (petitioner/s) for appointment. Accordingly, their applications were processed subject to regular selection process. The petitioners in W.P. No.11415 of 2018, the fathers of the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement vide applications dated 3.2.1994, 29.03.1995 and

30.03.1995. The petitioners were appointed vide order dated 22.04.1995 and 09.03.1995 on the post of Lower Division Clerk and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. In W.P. No. 18436/2017, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.09.1994 on the post of Process Writer and after that he was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 17.10.1996. In W.P. No. 20072 of 2017, the mother of the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 01.05. 1995 and the petitioner was appointed on 06.05.1995 on temporary basis and vide order dated 19.07.2002 his services were regularized and vide order dated 04.11.2009 and on 05.11.2016 he was promoted and in W.P. No. 20158 of 2017, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.09.1994 on temporary basis and was regularized on 06.02.1996 and finally was promoted vide order dated 14.11.2011 and they have served for about more than 22-24 years of service in the establishment of the respondents.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that circular dated 03.01.1995 was issued cancelling the earlier