The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manish Vyas & Ors.

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma :-

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17275/2022 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 8 was allowed, the order dated 11.04.2022 rejecting their claim for regularization was quashed and the State Government was directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioners by creating additional posts or, in alternative, to grant them regular pay scale on the posts on which they had been continuously working. The learned Single Judge further directed that no fresh recruitment be undertaken on the concerned Class-IV posts until the writ petitioners were first regularized.

At the outset, I.A. No.14100/2026 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 449 days in filing the present writ appeal is taken up for consideration. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the delay occurred on account of obtaining legal opinion, administrative approvals at various levels and the subsequent decision to challenge the impugned order after issues arose during the contempt proceedings. Although the delay is more than 1 year but, the explanation furnished in the application constitutes sufficient cause. Accordingly, I.A. No.14100/2026 is allowed and the delay of 449 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The appeal is thereafter heard finally on merits.

The respondents/writ petitioners were engaged between the years 2003 and 2008 as Chowkidars, Gardeners and Peons in different District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions on temporary/contractual basis and were subsequently paid Collector rates between 2011 and 2016. Earlier, pursuant to an order passed in W.P. No.3472/2022 directing consideration of their claim, the competent authority rejected their request for regularization by order dated 11.04.2022 holding that except for grant of benefits available under the policy relating to Sthayee Karmi, no right to regularization accrued in their favour. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed W.P. No.17275/2022. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed a detailed return admitting that the services of the writ petitioners were continuously required because of shortage of Class-IV staff and repeated proposals had been forwarded to the State Govt. seeking creation of additional posts, sanction of regular pay scales and financial approval. The State Govt. adopted the said return. Taking note of these admissions and relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India & others - SLP (C) No.5580/2024 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad - Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024, the learned Single Judge concluded that the writ petitioners deserved regularization and accordingly allowed the writ petition.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the respondents were never appointed through any regular recruitment process and their engagement being temporary and dehors the recruitment rules, they acquired no enforceable right to seek regularization. It was argued that continuation in service for a long period or payment of Collector rates cannot confer a right to absorption into regular Government service and that the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 prohibits regularization of such appointments. It was further contended that creation of posts falls exclusively within the executive domain and the learned Single Judge could not have issued a mandamus directing the State Govt. to create additional posts or restrain the authorities from undertaking regular recruitment. The departmental proposals seeking sanction of posts merely reflected administrative requirements and did not create any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. It was also argued that Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra) were rendered on their own facts and could not dilute the binding ratio of Uma Devi (supra).

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order by submitting that the petitioners have continuously served the Consumer Forums for nearly two decades and have discharged duties of regular Class-IV employees without interruption. It was argued that respondent Nos.2 to 6 themselves admitted in their return that the functioning of the Consumer Commissions was seriously affected due to shortage of regular Class-IV employees and that repeated proposals had been forwarded to the State Government for creation of additional posts and regularization of the petitioners. According to the respondents, the State cannot continue to take work from the petitioners indefinitely while simultaneously denying them the status and benefits attached to the posts on which they have continuously worked. It was further submitted that the rejection order dated 11.04.2022 ignored the admitted factual position and was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. Reliance was placed upon Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra) to contend that employees who have rendered long years of uninterrupted service because of the failure of the State to undertake regular recruitment deserve equitable consideration.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the entire record.

At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the facts of the present case is largely undisputed. The respondents have continuously discharged duties in different District Consumer forums for nearly two decades. Their services have never been discontinued nor has the department ever taken a stand that their engagement was either unnecessary or that the work being performed by them was of a temporary or seasonal nature. On the contrary, the record clearly demonstrates that the Consumer Commissions have been functioning with the assistance of the writ petitioners for several years and the departmental authorities themselves have repeatedly acknowledged that their services are indispensable for the day-to-day functioning of the establishment.

The departmental has not merely admitted the long continuance of the writ petitioners but has further disclosed that there exists an acute shortage of regular Class-IV employees in the Consumer Commissions. They have specifically pleaded that repeated communications and proposals were forwarded to the State Govt. seeking sanction of additional posts, grant of regular pay scales and financial approval so that the petitioners, who had been continuously working for several years, could be appropriately accommodated. These admissions coming from the employer itself clearly establish that the services rendered by the writ petitioners were recurring requirement of the department and not against any casual or intermittent work. Once the employer itself repeatedly recommends creation of posts on account of continuous necessity, the State Government cannot indefinitely ignore such recommendations and simultaneously continue to extract work from the employees on daily wage basis. The writ petitioners engaged by the competent authorities themselves and have been continuously retained in service for almost two decades. The State cannot now be permitted to take advantage of its own prolonged administrative inaction to defeat the legitimate expectation arising from continuous utilization of the petitioners' services. Equity may not override law, but where the employer itself has consistently acknowledged the necessity of the employees and repeatedly sought creation of posts, such circumstances cannot be ignored while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The contention of the appellant-State is founded upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi (supra). There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein that regularization cannot ordinarily become a mode of recruitment and that public employment must conform to the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, judicial precedents are not to be applied divorced from the factual matrix of each case. The Constitution Bench itself was dealing with the larger issue of indiscriminate regularization of irregular appointees. In the present case, concerns employees who have continuously served the department for nearly two decades, whose services have repeatedly been acknowledged as indispensable by the employer itself, and in whose favour the departmental authorities have consistently sought creation of additional posts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly examined the peculiar facts instead of mechanically applying the ratio of Uma Devi (supra).

We also find that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra), wherein the Apex Court took note of situations where employees had rendered uninterrupted service for long years owing to the continuous requirement of work and the failure of the employer to undertake regular recruitment. Those decisions do not dilute the ratio laid down in Uma Devi (supra) but emphasize that where exceptional facts exist and the employer itself has consistently utilized the services of the employees for decades, constitutional courts are not powerless to mould the relief in order to prevent manifest injustice. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has applied these principles in their proper perspective.

The submission of appellants that creation of posts lies exclusively within the executive domain also does not persuade us to interfere with the impugned order. Ordinarily, creation of posts is undoubtedly a matter of executive policy. However, in the present case, the learned Single Judge has not issued such direction in vacuum. The direction has been issued after taking into consideration the repeated recommendations made by the competent departmental authorities themselves, who have consistently represented before the State Govt. that the existing sanctioned strength was insufficient and that additional posts were required for effective functioning of the Consumer Commissions. The impugned directions are, therefore, founded upon the admissions made by the employer and cannot be said to amount to an unwarranted judicial encroachment into executive policy.

Another aspect which deserves notice is that despite repeated recommendations made over several years, the State Government neither sanctioned the required posts nor evolved any alternative mechanism to regularize the functioning of the Consumer Commissions. Instead, it continued to take uninterrupted work from the writ petitioners on daily wage basis. Such an approach is manifestly unfair and inconsistent with the obligations expected from a model employer. A welfare State cannot indefinitely continue employees on temporary arrangements despite admitting the permanent nature of the work and simultaneously refuse to take any administrative decision on the recommendations submitted by its own departments.

Consequently, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17275/2022 is affirmed.