Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 943
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W. P. No.7960/2016
Ku.Preeti Panthi vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9296/2016
Pratibha Kherde vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9297/2016
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9300/2016
Amita Shivhare vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9378/2016
Kunwar Bahadur Singh Barkade vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9391/2016
Priyanka Dongre vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9415/2016
Vikash Kumar Mishra vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9420/2016
Amit Mohan Sarote vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9422/2016
Mukesh Namdeo vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9427/2016
Smt.Shalini Jain vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9429/2016
Smt.Suneeta Uikey vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9432/2016
Sunil Thakur vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9627/2016
Puneet Mohan Khare vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.9666/2016
Deepika Pandar vs. The State of M. P.
2
W. P. No.9995/2016
Nitin Khare vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.11141/2016
Ravi Mishra vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.11869/2016
Smt.Smriti Pandya vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.12153/2016
Ashish Kumar Deen vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.12728/2016
Shailendra Kumar Chourasia vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13775/2016
Kavita Gangwal vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13778/2016
Alok Kumar Dubey vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13779/2016
Govind Kushwaha vs. Technical Education & Skill Development Deptt.
W. P. No.13780/2016
Ajay Pal Singh vs. Technical Education & Skill Development Deptt.
W. P. No.13781/2016
Pallav Apte vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13782/2016
Praveen Singh Rajput vs. Technical Education & Skill
Development Deptt.
W. P. No.13783/2016
Ravi Rampuriya vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13784/2016
Shivraj Upadhyaya vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.13825/2016
Smt. Sapna Patwa vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14172/2016
3
Bandish Modi vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14173/2016
Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14174/2016
Laxman Singh Argal vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14176/2016
Yogendra Singh Jadon vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14247/2016
Manish Saraswat vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14250/2016
Kapil Sharma vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14253/2016
Rahul Sharma vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14254/2016
Pradeep K. Mishra vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14255/2016
Sunil Dutt Sharma vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14256/2016
Amit Kumar Shrivastava vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14257/2016
Mukesh Suman vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14258/2016
Vijay Pratap Garg vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14259/2016
Rahul Joshi vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14260/2016
Khomendra Thakur vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.14261/2016
Kamal Singh Lodhi vs. The State of M. P.
4
W. P. No.14849/2016
Nijam Khan vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.15218/2016
Ravi Singh Thakur vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.15421/2016
Renuka Bhardwaj vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.15544/2016
Ruchir Jain vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.15547/2016
Naresh Sen vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.16175/2016
Smt. Shobha Gupta vs. The State of M. P.
W. P. No.16222/2016
Shiv Narayan Prajapati vs. The State of M. P.
W.P.No.16239/2016
Harnarayan Yadav vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16314/2016
Rajesh Kumar Mahobia vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.16344/2016
Ankita Gupta vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16377/2016
Smt.Ramlali Gautam vs.The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16394/2016
Ranjeet Singh Yadav vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16409/2016
Santosh Bawmne vs The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16510/2016
Ku. Archana Singh vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.16698/2016
Ku. Deepti Garhpandey vs. The State of M.P.
5
W.P.No.16756/2016
Jitendra Kumar Hattimare vs The State of M.P.
W.P.No.21038/2016
Abrar Mohammad vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.377/2017
Jyotsna Vadhya vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.380/2017
Santosh Rathore vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.400/2017
Sachchidanand Dubey vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.438/2017
Nitesh Bajpai vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.880/2017
Varsha Bhumarker vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.1686/2017
Garima Belwwe vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.2215/2017
Rajmani Prajapati vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.5236/2017
Priyanka Bilthere @ Priyanka Pachori vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.6960/2017
Sakina Prakashwala vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.9549/2017
Narendra Kumar Sondhiya vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.11965/2017
Rupesh Kumar Pawar vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.11968/2017
Dileep Kumar vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.12080/2017
Abhishek Sahu vs. The State of M.P.
6
W.P.No.13482/2017
Mahesh Kumar Upadhya vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.13572/2017
Sachin Singh vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.15231/2017
Lakhan Verma vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.17407/2017
Rajendra Kushwah vs. The State of M.P.
Conc.No.891/2018
Renuka Bhardwaj vs. The State of M.P.
W.P.No.6737/2018
Jitendra Singh vs. The State of M.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Praveen Verma, Shri Praveen Dubey, Shri Sanjay Verma, Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, Shri Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, Shri Ashok Chakravarti, Shri Vinod Tiwari, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Shri Pramesh Jain and Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners in their respective petitions.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State of M.P. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for respondent- M.P.C.V.E.T. Shri R.K.Dwivedi, OIC, Skill Development Department, Jabalpur also present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jabalpur, Dated : 24.04.2018 As the similar issue is involved in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order.
72. All the petitioners have filed the present petitions being aggrieved by order dated 30.08.2016, passed by Chief Executive Officer, M.P. Council For Vocational Education and Training (for short 'M.P.C.V.E.T.') by which their services have been discontinued and 133 Skill Development Centres (for short 'SDC') in 43 districts have been directed to be closed.
3. That under the National Skill Development Scheme, in order to provide technical education and skill development to the uneducated youth, the State Government through M.P.C.V.E.T. has decided to establish 133 SDC in entire Madhya Pradesh.
4. All the petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Managers, Trainers, Office Assistant-cum-Accountant or Class- IV employees, as per module prepared for establishing SDC in the State. In each centre the post of one Manager, one Office Assistant-cum-Accountant, 4 Trainers and 2 Helpers were sanctioned. Their qualification and remuneration were also fixed. Initially they were appointed for the period of 2 years on contract basis which was extendable for a period of one year. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to extend the period of those who have completed 3 years of contract and till then the Government shall not remove them.
5. After one year the M.P.C.V.E.T. has passed an order dated 16.05.2016 directing all the officials to terminate the services of the employees working in 133 SDC and further decided to close down the centres. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present writ petitions were filed.
86. By order dated 28.03.2017, this Court has granted interim protection to all the petitioners by permitted them to continue into service with payment of salary by the Government as per contract.
7. The respondents filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench against the interim order. By order dated 05.02.2018, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the Writ Appeal with following directions:
"1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers.
2. In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such Trainers in the other Skill Centers, subject to the consent of such Trainer to work in another center.
3. The services of the Trainer in the other Training Centers shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that services of the Trainer are not required in any of the Centres and its need shall not arise in the near future.
4. But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the Appellants shall re-engage the Trainers, who were engaged at an earlier point of time."
8. After the aforesaid order, a W.P.No.17859/2017 pending before the Bench at Indore has been disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2018 with observation that the order delivered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.418/2017 on 05.02.2018 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
9. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, appearing for the respondents submit that the batch of present writ petitions be also disposed of 9 in the light of the directions given the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.418/2017.
10. At this stage, Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents have decided to start the centres in different name by appointing new contractual employees.
11. Shri Ganguly submits that the said order was passed before the decision in W.A.No.418/2017 but now after order dated 05.02.2018 passed in the Writ Appeal, the respondents are bound by the directions given therein.
12. Shri Dubey further submits that the petitioners have not been paid the salary after the order dated 16.05.2016 despite they are working by virtue of interim order.
13. Shri Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent- M.P.C.V.E.T. submits that, in this regard, the petitioners be directed to submit representations individually to the competent authority.
14. In view of above, the petitioners are directed to submit individual representations specifying the period for which salary has not been paid. On such representations being filed, respondents are directed to consider the representations and if the petitioners have not been paid the salary, the same be paid to them.
15. Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 are applicable to the respondent-Department. The petitioners were appointed after 10 following prescribed procedure under the law and have been working continuously from the year 2013 to 2016, hence, they are eligible for all statutory benefits available to the permanent workman as per definition of 'fixed term employee'.
16. Now in view of the order passed by the Division Bench, this issue is not liable to be decided in these petitions. As on today, there is no permanent employee in these SDCs, hence, there cannot be any comparison and parity of their working hours, allowances and other benefits with the permanent employees as the entire staff of these centres, including the petitioner, were appointed purely on contract basis for a fixed term period and their services are governed under the terms of contract. If the petitioners want to avail the benefit of Standard Standing Orders, then they have the remedy to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
17. In view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.418/2017, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in the same terms and conditions.
18. The order passed in Writ Appeal No.418/2017 dated 05.02.2018 shall be applicable in these writ petitions mutatis mutandis.
19. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of the connected writ petitions.
(Vivek Rusia) Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Judge Date: 2018.04.27 15:52:54 +05'30'