Rajjulal Burman vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—It is seen from the proceedings that despite grant of various opportunities, no return whatsoever has been filed by respondent No. 3. It is contended by learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 that in fact the claim is made against the respondent No. 3, and since the post is sanctioned by the State Government, it was the responsibility of respondent No. 3 to extend the service benefit to the petitioner in the present case. In view of this, it is contended that no direction is required to be issued against the State.

The claim made by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Tractor Driver. He remained in the employment continuously. Since the post of Tractor Driver was not sanctioned in the Municipal Council-respondent No. 3, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No. 187/1999, seeking a direction against the respondents to sanction the post of Tractor Driver. It was contended by respondent No. 3, who was being represented by the counsel that the post is not sanctioned, therefore, the claim of petitioner for regularization could not be considered. However, as soon as the post is sanctioned, the claim of the petitioner would be considered for regularization. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to sanction a post of Tractor Driver.

Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, an order was issued on 01.07.2004 sanctioning the post of Tractor Driver in the establishment of respondent-Municipal Council. The resolution was already passed by the Municipal Council to regularize the services of the petitioner on the said post but the order was issued only on 10.06.2010, to give the benefit of regularization with prospective effect to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the post was sanctioned way back in the year 2004 and statement was made before this Court by the respondent No. 3 that if the post is sanctioned claim of the petitioner would be considered for regularization, the order of regularization of the petitioner should have been issued with immediate effect from the date the sanction of post was granted by the State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 14.09.2011 passed in W.P. No. 3412/2009 (s) [Smt. Sita Tamrakar Vs. State of M.P. and others], and has contended that all these aspects were considered by this Court on earlier occasion and, it was categorically held that the persons like petitioner would be entitled for regularization on the newly created post from the date of creation of the post. It is thus contended that the similar benefit be extended to the petitioner.

This Court has already examined all these aspects in the case of Smt. Sita Tamrakar (supra) and has held thus :

“Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Respondent Municipal Council is directed to issue appropriate orders treating the petitioner to be regularized in pursuance to the resolution passed by the President- in-Council and treating the petitioner to be appointed on the said post, grant all benefit of pay fixation, arrears and seniority etc, w.e.f. the said date. Necessary orders in this regard be issued and orders be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.”

In view of the categorical finding already recorded by this Court in similar circumstances, the petitioner too is entitled to the similar benefit. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the similar direction. The order passed in the case of Smt. Sita Tamrakar (supra) would be applicable in the case of petitioner Mutatis mutandis.

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.