Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nasiruddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1342 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NASIRUDDIN S/O SHRI IMAM HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT
38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VEHICLE DRIVER (SINCE
TERMINATED), R/O ND 526, GOVINDA COLONY, POST
KOTMA COLLIERY, TEHSIL KOTMA, DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. MALTI DADARIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CO LLECTO R A N U P P U R DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UPPER COLLECTOR ANUPPUR DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR VETERINARY SERVICES
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B.D. SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 9/22/2023
11:36:44 AM
2
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.9361 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was employed in the respondents/department vide order dated 12.10.2006. He was being paid wages as per the rate fixed by the Collector. Payment of wages was made regularly upto February, 2009 and thereafter with effect from 01.03.2009 to 31.12.2011 for 34 months, the payment was not made. Again the payment was made from 01.01.2012 to December, 2014 but from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, no wages were paid although the work was taken from the petitioner during the intervening period. The petitioner made a complaint to the Collector to take a decision for payment of salary to the petitioner, which was duly forwarded by the concerned Collector to the Jila Pashu Kalyan Samiti, Anuppur from where wages were paid to the writ petitioner.
3. The Government has floated a scheme dated 07.10.2016 in the light of which, the daily rated employees appointed in the Government departments prior to 16.05.2007 and continued upto 01.09.2016 deserve to be classified as semi skilled, skilled and unskilled under the pay-scale as mentioned in Clause 1.2 of the circular. The petitioner moved to the authorities for consideration of his case in the light of the circular. When no heed was paid, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.22654 of 2018 which was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2019.
4. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the policy dated 07.10.2016 is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 9/22/2023 11:36:44 AM 3 applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner deserves a permanent status as he was working since long in the respondent/department. Placing reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sadhuram Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.3047 of 2012 decided on 16.08.2018), the petitioner prayed for the similar relief as granted therein. The writ court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was never appointed under the Government service. He was never paid salary through the Government head. The salary was paid to the petitioner by Pashu Kalyan Samiti. From the documents which have been filed by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in continuous employment even in the Pashu Kalyan Samiti. He was engaged from time to time on requirement basis. There is no document available on record to show that the petitioner was ever appointed by the order of the Collector. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed.
5. Today when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has failed to demonstrate any document to show that the petitioner was appointed in terms of the order passed by the Collector. Rather, the documents which have been filed in the writ petition clearly reflect that the salary was being paid to the petitioner from the funds of the Pashu Kalyan Samiti. Therefore, the petitioner cannot said to be even a contractual employee appointed on collector rate under the order of the Collector and, therefore, the policy which has been floated by the Government in terms of the circular dated 07.10.2016 is not applicable to the case of the writ petitioner. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the writ court and a reasoned order has been passed. The counsel appearing for the petitioner could Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 9/22/2023 11:36:44 AM 4 not point out any document to enable him to get the benefit of policy dated 07.10.2016. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the writ petitioner.
6. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 9/22/2023
11:36:44 AM