Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Ashok Pathak on 22 June, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ Appeal No.247 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Ashok Pathak & Others
Writ Appeal No.249 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Surendra Kumar Ingwasia & Others
Writ Appeal No.255 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Ramraj Kushwaha & Others
Writ Appeal No.256 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Lakhan Prasad Sen & Another
Writ Appeal No.257 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Bal Krishna Patel & Another
Writ Appeal No.258 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Rakesh Tiwari & Others
2
Writ Appeal No.265 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Vishnu Kant Tripathi
Writ Appeal No.266 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Rakesh Shukla
Writ Appeal No.267 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Madan Singh Thakur and Others
Writ Appeal No.268 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Jaat
Writ Appeal No.269 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Rajulal Patel
Writ Appeal No.270 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Sushil Shukla
3
Writ Appeal No.271 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Anil Shukla & Others
Writ Appeal No.272 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Ashok Kumar Dubey
Writ Appeal No.281 of 2016
Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Versus
Hassan Mehndi
Present : Hon. Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon. Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava.
Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul
Choubey, Shri Manoj Sharma, Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, Shri
Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the respondents(in their
respective writ appeals).
Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No.
ORDER
(22.06.2016) Calling in question an order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the writ Court in 20 writ petitions which were disposed of by a common order passed as indicated here in above on 24.02.2016 this appeal has been filed by Municipal Corporation 4 Jabalpur under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. As the questions of law and the facts are identical in all these appeals they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. On the basis of an order passed in a Public Interest Litigation, Dhannulal Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.- W.P.12281/2006 on 06.10.2015 the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur decided to examine the case of 74 daily wage employees whose services were regularized and based on the complaint made in the Public Interest Litigation the decision was taken in accordance to the direction issued by this Court to issue show cause notices to the employees concerned and thereafter take action for deregularization if required in a particular case. Action was taken, notices were issued and based on the finding recorded by a committee constituted for the said purpose regularization of 74 employees was cancelled vide orders passed on 19.11.2015.
4. The aggrieved employees who suffered cancellation of their regularization by virtue of this order dated 19.11.2015 filed writ petitions, total 20 in number, before the learned writ Court and the learned writ Court having allowed the writ petitions and having remanded the matter back to the Municipal Corporation finding the action taken to be unsustainable on various grounds including the grounds pertaining to breach of principles of natural justice, this appeal has been filed by the Municipal Corporation.
5. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, took us to the order passed by the learned writ Court in detail and tried to indicate that primarily the writ Court has interfered into the matter on account of 3 factors. One, that the seniority list of employees has not been prepared in accordance to the directions issued in the earlier writ petition, he submits various explanations for the same and tried to indicate that only because of some error in the preparation of seniority list or in not preparing the seniority list as per the earlier orders of the High Court. No prejudice has been caused to the employees concerned and as primarily the deregularization is ordered on account of illegality in the process of regularization, non-preparation of seniority list will not have 5 serious adverse consequences. Thereafter he tried to indicate that in all cases show cause notices were issued opportunity of explanation was granted and in most of the cases as the employees did not seek any opportunity to produce the documents or any other material, in the absence of any such request being there once a show cause notice is issued and an opportunity is granted to the employees to give their say there is no error in the action taken and the findings recorded to say that the principles of natural justice have been violated is not proper.
6. The third ground canvassed is that the writ court has not analyzed the reasons stated in the order impugned for deregularization or cancellation of the regularization, the same has not been properly appreciated and without taking note of the same the impugned orders have have been passed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have refuted the aforesaid and argued that once there is an order by this Court to prepare a seniority list of the employees in a particular manner the Municipal Corporation on its own cannot deviate from the same and prepare the seniority list contrary to the directions issued by the high Court and then justify their action by saying that no prujedice or adverse affect is caused. They submit that once there is an order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction to do a particular thing in a particular manner, until and unless the action is taken according to the directions issued anything contrary theirto cannot be sustained and interference made on such count by the learned writ Court cannot be learned as unsustainable. That apart, in the matter of following the principles of natural justice learned counsel took us through the detailed analysis in this regard made by learned writ Court in Para-32 onwards of the impugned order and tried to indicate that the reasons and remarks given by the learned writ court clearly indicates that not only the principles of natural justice have been violated but the justification given for deregularization is also prima facie found to be unsustainable by the learned writ Court and if after considering all these aspects of the matter, remand made to Municipal Corporation for reconsideration the Municipal 6 Corporation for reconsideration cannot be termed as improper or unsustainable.
8. We have considered the rival contentions advanced and we find that there is no merit in the writ appeals and the same deserves to be dismissed. Once in the earlier round of litigation Benches of this Court have directed for preparation of the seniority list with reference to a particular date and in a particular manner and when the seniority list is not prepared in consonance to the same and when the process of deregularization is undertaken without preparing a proper seniority list, we are of the considered view that the learned writ Court has not committed any error in interference into the matter. Respondents are not right in contending that no prejudice is caused in the matter of preparation of seniority list. When by an order is passed for preparation of seniority list in a particular manner by this Court the Municipal Corporation, cannot, contrary to the same undertake the process of deregularization. Once a direction was given in the matter of preparation of seniority and if action is taken in disregard to the same and If the learned writ Court has interfered into the matter on such count, we see no error in the same warranting reconsideration.
9. That apart, on going through the detailed order passed by the learned writ Court, we find that after analyzing each individual case in detail and after evaluating it in the back drop of the principles of law governing grant of opportunity of hearing and the requirement of natural justice, the concept of regularization etc. found that in some cases the reason given in the show-cause notice to say that the regularization was not proper, is not the reason on the basis of which the impugned action was taken. It is found that on a totally different ground which was not the ground in the show-cause notice, action is taken. Likewise, it was found that the explanation given by the employees and certain documents submitted by them were not at all considered and without evaluating explanation the same was rejected. That apart, it is found that only 3 days' time was granted to file documents and the explanation and as adequate time was not granted to 7 submit reply and documents to the show-cause notice it is held that proper opportunity was not granted.
It is therefore, clear that the writ Court after going into the various aspects of the matter has taken a conscious decision and finding there to be various irregularities as found to be herein above was also Para-32 of the judgment interfered into the matter and remanded back the matter to the writ Court for fresh consideration. This is a reasonable finding recorded by the learned writ Court.
10. The learned writ Court having recorded a reasonable finding on due analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot sit over the same and record a different finding with regard to factual aspects of the matter which according to us has been analyzed in the right prospective by learned writ Court.
11. However, the Municipal Corporation is granted liberty to conclude the process as directed by the learned writ Court, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and take a final decision.
12. Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by learned writ Court warranting reconsideration, all these appeals are dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
raju