Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gomati Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2015
W.P.No.15034/2008
17.08.2015
Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Ms. Manjeet Chuckal, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents-State.
This writ petition, as was filed in the year 2008, was for the following reliefs :-
"(i) To call the entire records pertaining to the services of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) To direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner in the prior post of his working with all their back wages, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
It is gathered from the documents available on record of the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 on daily wages. Since he was knowing the Hindi typing, it appears that he was assigned the typing work. However, no orders in that respect are available on record except the list said to be prepared and furnished by the department where it was said that the petitioner was working as Typist. Some order was issued in the year 2002, directing that wages be paid to the petitioner as skilled labour. The petitioner was assigned work by written order. It appears that some order of termination was issued against the petitioner on 31.12.2003 and when certain representations were made by the employees Association, the directions were issued to recall the said notice and reinstate the petitioner. From further documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner was taken back in service, was assigned the duties. It is the averments made by the petitioner in his petition that though he was discharging the duties, was not being paid the wages, for which he made the representation Annx.P/13, but the same has not been decided, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
Though opportunities were granted to the respondents after issuance of notice of the writ petition, but no return whatsoever has been filed. Even when cost was imposed on the Officer Incharge of the respondents vide order dated 18.6.2015, no return whatsoever has been filed. It is not clear from averments made in the writ petition whether the petitioner was working or not and whether any claim in respect of payment of wages of the petitioner was considered and decided by the competent authority or not. Further representations of the petitioner to that effect have also not been considered.
Keeping in view the aforesaid as also the fact that unless it is demonstrated that the petitioner is continuously working, no writ of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation can be issued, by moulding the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, it is directed that the representations so made by the petitioner, be expeditiously decided by the respondent No.2, the Chief Engineer of the department at Rewa. To facilitate the said authority, the petitioner will furnish a copy of all the representations so made by him together with a certified copy of the order passed today before the said authority within fifteen days from today and on receipt of the said representation, the competent authority aforesaid would decide the same within four weeks. The merits of the claim made in the representations are to be decided by the authorities on the basis of material collected in enquiry to be conducted by the respondent No.2, without being influenced by any observations made in the present order passed in this writ petition. The order on representation be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.