An applicant challenged his termination from service as a daily wages peon, claiming entitlement to regularization after working for three years. The court held that continuous work was not sufficient to establish a regular appointment without proper vacancy and procedure.
The petition for regularization and continuation of service was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
a" )ffs)(^°/Q>
IN THB STATE ADMINISTRAIIVE TRIB13NAL W nADHYA ERADSSH AT JABAtPUR.
APPLICAM
Qopi Sharaa aged 28 years S/o Baaklsban
6«
RBSPOKDSNT3 - (l) State Gevt.of Madhya Pradssh
UA, Backward Tribe, Kalyaa ¥ibhag Ballabh Bhawan, Bhapal (K.P.).
(2) Collector, ScheduledTrite/ Caste Kalyan Bibhag Durg.
(5) Erincipal, Boys Higher Sebool, Dondl (Ourg).
Motllal PSOB
Ne haru C hhatrawas
Sofflan peon, Govt.Mult:lpurpose
Hlgher Seoondary Sehhol Dondl
Arjuapeon, Neharu Cbhatrawas
Dondi (Durg).
Application u/s 19 of tteAdmlnifitrative'FrlfctoalAct 1985
A^&
.<?
'Svf -ciwivl-tf, gxil.y'iG. (sicii'yy
SIT^T TR^ . W.P- (S.')^ ^^/05' <l<dl*Kicb"""""-^-<------'^ 200
f^^sr'
|SII^T^I
'K;-ii.+ sn^i
aniwgfta|sii^iTRiiwgfsg|41^1<-<<il-) IIKcil'^fe^ <^^|<
4; aifs^iTan^r|
|---|---|---|
||SB : Hon'ble Shn Manindra Mo
04-03-2010|(
an Shrivastava. J.|
||Shri Somkant Verma, cou
Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel
This petition has been'filec
termination from sen/ice. The ca
as a daily wages peon during the
1996 in a Government hostel at
the pay data for the months of I
(Annexure-P/2) and November 1
was taken from the petitioner frc
petitionerwas thereafter disconti
(respondents No. 4to 7) were ei|
Learned counsel for th^
worked for almost three years ^
been continued and the respor]i
arbitrarily by disoontinuing the (|
to7.
Furthersubmission mad^
that the petitioner had workec}|rjsel forthe pefitioner.
^awyerfor respondents No. 1 to3/State.
) bythe petitioner aggrieved on account of
^e ofthe petitioner isthat hewas engaged
| periodfrom 20th August, 1993to October,
^atod. The petitionerhas placed on record
february 1994 (Annexure-P/1), June 1395
995 (Annexure-P/3) to showthat the work
jm time totime.
It is further stated that the
^iued from service and some other persons
]gaged.
petitioner submits that as the petitioner
s daily wages employee, he oughtto have
dents have committed illegality and acted
>etitioner and emptoying respondents No. 4
bythe learned counsel forthe petitioner is
for more than 240 days as daiiy wages|
d-cd •<<l<<|ia^0'c||+<< . fclrtl^y
.^x'
/•'_;aa^
-HC-22
it?f
ggB»a3<8
,^,
r/^ • i^
| an^r^ 'M'psii^; |
TTO?[r^iffgR s^ ^S^K ,JrJ..:?.^lK-.-Ah.&6/°'s~ 200 'f^^T' |
|---|---|
| wqw^fta | Wfe*•WRJfTtfest.(fqCT( ^sil'dtfan^ |
| employee, he beoame entitle for r^gularization and the respondents are bound to considerthe case ofthe p^titionerfor regularization. Peroontra, the submission of learned counsel forthe respondents is thatthe petitioner was never appoirjted underthe non-applicant/respondent |
|
| and therefore, the petitioner couldjnot place any order of appointment on record. It is further submitted that |
|
| petitioner was engaged by the | |
| appointed underthe Government ^ervice. | |
| have oonsidered the oon<ention raised by the learned oounsel for | |
| the respective parties and perus^d the records. Asthe respondents have |
|
| denied that the petitioner was e'^jer appointed in Government sen/ice, it is | |
| the burden of the petitioner Vp establish that he was appointed in |
|
| Government sen/ioe. It is for tt^e petitioner to prove that he had worked |
|
| continuously under the Governnjent between the period from 20August, | |
| 1993 to Ootober 1996. The pet |
|
| for the months of February 199 | |
| these documents it isfoundthatthe petitioner was engaged as dailywages employee and discharged certaji \rork. There is nothing on recordtoshow |
|
| that there existed regular v^cancy of Peon/Choukidar and that the |
^-•.^t.-a»
^?sm5i-^
f ,<..,,.-3-;»'-^3a-HC-22
^•q|S,;;"" ry'
^i. ~~'* ^
^^.?i--..y^~ '
•7S ^fpVvW, 'S^IWTS. f^viwy.
3TI^?T TRrg? •^ flWWI ShHiqi ^..^.A...(?:-^J..6.(rlZe 200
'f^B^sr'
311^1^
^T'4E(r1^nt''T lll^^iT ^ fsl<i1 <FII-^K
W an^i
A^i'ft '^^3 ^?3lf^R 311^1
petitioner was appointed much Bss in accordance with the procedure
presoribed for regular appointment foT the post of peon/choukidar.
<a
In view ofthe decisions of trti|e Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretarv. State of Karnataka arid others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others
reported in {2006} 4 SCC 1and (pfRcial Liauidator Vs. Davanand and
others reDorted in 2007 (11 SCC 408 no indefeasible right is created- jn
favour of the petitioner so as to cla m his reinstatement/regularization in the
service. In view of this, 1 do no' find any merit in the petition and the
petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- <br>Manindra Mohan Shrwastavaf
Judge |
Bini
"'^
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee engaged as a daily wage peon for over three years who was not formally appointed under Government service is entitled to regularization.
Whether the evidence of pay slips and receipts establishes an indefeasible right to reinstatement despite absence of regular vacancy and appointment procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and OthersReferred¶31
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1) · Who else cites this
Official Liquidator Vs. Davanand and othersReferred¶31
Official Liquidator Vs. Davanand and others (reported in 2007 (11 SCC 408)) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopi Sharma
State, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
Collector, Scheduled Tribe/Caste Kalyan Bibhag Durg
Principal, Boys Higher Secondary School, Dondi
Mottal P
Neharu C Hhatrawas
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
