IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 22460 of 2021 D.S. RAHANGDALE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Krishna -

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari - Government Advocate for State.

ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India making following prayer :-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to order the regularization of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits including the proper fixation of his Salary and grant of arrears of difference in pay with interest. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner alongwith Shri Aditya Krishna - Advocate submitted that petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.17478/2003 before this Court. Said Writ Petition was disposed off vide order dated 15/12/2003. In said order Court directed regularization of petitioner and date from which regularization is to be given is to be left to respondents. Thereafter, respondents do not take any action. Petitioner has to file Contempt Petition No.98/2004 before this Court. Said contempt petition was disposed off vide order dated 04/03/2004 and direction was given to pass orders by 30/04/2004. Even after passing of order in contempt case, no order of regularization was passed. Respondents had challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.17478/2003 in L.P.A. No.253/2004. Said L.P.A. was dismissed on 31/08/2005. After dismissal of S.L.P. petitioner was regularized from 04/02/2013.

3. Learned senior counsel submitted that though petitioner has been regularized in service vide order dated 04/02/2013, but date from which petitioner is regularized has not been mentioned in said order. There is specific order in Writ Petition to decide the date for regularization. Writ Court held that petitioner is entitled for regularization vide its order dated 15/12/2003, therefore, petitioner has to be regularized in service from said date. Sanction and vacant posts were also available with respondents. Respondents themselves have not acted. Now respondents cannot say that since they have passed order of regularization from 04/02/2013, therefore, benefits is to be granted to petitioner from 04/02/2013 only and not from earlier date.

4. Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that petitioner was regularized vide order dated 04/02/2013, therefore, said date is the date from which petitioner has to be given benefit. Petitioner cannot be given benefit from retrospective date. No interference is called for and Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. Heard counsel for the parties.

6. On going through facts of the case it is found that Court has passed order on 15/12/2003 in Writ Petition No.17478/2003 holding petitioner to be entitled for regularization. On said date sanction and vacant posts were also available, therefore, respondents ought to have regularized petitioner from 15/12/2003 the date when Court held so. Respondent did not respond to the order passed by this Court and kept the matter pending for long. No benefit can be given to respondents for their own mistakes.

7. In view of same, Writ Petition is allowed directing respondents to treat petitioner as regularized from the date when Court passed order i.e. on 15/12/2003 in Writ Petition No.17478/2003. Petitioner is entitled to get all benefits accruing from this Order. Order be complied with within period of

45 days from date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today.

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE as