M.P. Gramin Bank vs Hansraj Yadav on 19 November, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M.P. Gramin Bank vs Hansraj Yadav on 19 November, 2020

By the instant petition, the petitioner/Bank is seeking review/modification in the order dated 09.10.2020 passed in Conc. Petition No.2592/2017 whereby this Court disposed of the said petition directing the respondent/Bank (petitioner herein) to consider the claim of the petitioners (respondents herein) for regularization of their services in view of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka & others Vs. Umadevi & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also observed that the petitioners (respondents herein) have already completed more than ten years of their service, therefore, the respondent/Bank (petitioner herein) should consider their claim for regularization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that in the case of Umadevi (supra), the Supreme Court had directed to follow the criteria considering the fact whether the employee has completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 and whether their initial engagement in the organization is illegal or irregular. He, therefore, claimed that the said observation made by this Court in respect of completion of ten years of service would create complication for the petitioner/Bank to follow the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 2 Review Petition No.1071/2020 Umadevi (supra). Therefore, he is seeking modification in the observation made by this Court regarding completion of ten years of service and prays that the same may be removed from the order and it may be left open for the Authority to consider the same while considering the case of regularization giving weightage to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank has also pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnatka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 has further clarified while considering the case of Uma Devi (supra) that ten years period of service would be considered as on 10.04.2016 and if that is fulfilled then the regularization of the employees shall be considered.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank and submits that in the initial order passed in W.P. No.7399/2011, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner therein for regularization and till then, the said order has not been complied with and all the petitioners have completed more than ten years of their service even from the date of the said direction. Therefore, at this stage, request made by learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank is absolutely unreasonable showing their intention that they have already decided to reject the claim of the petitioners (respondents herein).

4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that even on 10.04.2006, maximum respondents have completed their service of ten years and in view of the clarification made by Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra), the Bank has no option but to consider the claim or to comply with the order passed by this Court for 3 Review Petition No.1071/2020 considering the claim of regularization in light of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).

5. I find force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank as the situation has already been clarified laying down the cut-off date for determining the ten years of service by the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesri (supra), therefore, the order passed by this Court in aforesaid contempt petition needs to be modified and it is accordingly modified that the claim of the respondents (petitioners therein) for regularization shall be considered by the petitioner/Bank in the light of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Umadevi (supra).

6. Hence, the observation regarding completion of service of ten years period by the respondents (petitioner therein) is hereby omitted from the order dated 09.10.2020 passed in Conc. No.2592/2017. Thus, the order passed in the aforesaid contempt petition is modified accordingly.

7. Resultantly, the review petition filed by the petitioner/Bank stands allowed to the above extent.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.11.26 10:36:32 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court