Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singhv vs Revenue Department on 17 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 18160 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. KAMAL SINGHV S/O DEVISINGH PARMAR, AGED
49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, ADDRESS:
PARAYAN CHOWK GANJ, RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RADHESHYAM S/O JITENDRA VIJAYWARGIYA,
AGED 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
ADDRESS: PURANI KOTWALI, BHADARA GALI,
SUBHAS MARG, RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA S/O DURGAPRASAD PARIK, AGED 55
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE, AD D R ESS: IN
FRONT OF RAMLEELA AARA MACHIN, QUARTER
NO.3, TEHSIL- BIAORA-RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. NEERAJ S/O RAMCHANDRA UPAPDHAYAY, AGED
41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, ADDRESS:
VILLAGE PASULIYA , TEHSIL BIAORA, DISTRICT
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. FAIM KHAN S/O ABDUL SALIM KHAN, AGED 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, ADDRESS: WARD
NO.3, BIRJIPURA, RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MUKESH SINJONIA - ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR, RAJGARH (BIAORA), DISTRICT
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 10/19/2023
5:40:36 PM
2
3. S.D.O (REVENUE), REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
RAJGARH (BIAORA) DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE OF M.P. BY SHRI PRADYUMNA KIBE - ADVOCATE.
INVERVENERS BY SHRI L. C. PATNE - ADVOCATE (IN I.A. NO.263 OF
2021).
INVERVENERS BY SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE - ADVOCATE (I.A. No.4878
OF 2019).
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue raised in this petition has been put to rest by this Court in Writ Petition No.26727 of 2019 (Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others) vide order dated 16.08.2023. Therefore, the present petition be also disposed off in terms of the said order.
2. The order 16.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.26727 of 2019 is reproduced below: -
"01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the circular dated 30.04.2019 and impugned order dated 16.08.2019, whereby his claim for regularization in the services has been rejected.
02. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Process Server in the office of Collector, Rajgarh. The State Government vide Circular dated 19.10.2005 issued guidelines for regularizing the services of the employees working on the post of Process Server. The respondents prepared a gradation list of Process Server as on 01.01.2006. The name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.41 in the list published in the year 2006 and at Serial No.22 in the list published in the year 2010. When the respondents refused to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM 3 regularize the services of the petitioner and others, they approached this Court by way of W.P. No.4308 of 2016 & others. Vide order dated 19.04.2018, the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred W.A. No.887 of 2018 and vide order dated 10.08.2018, the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (c) No.4900 of 2019 and vide order dated 08.02.2019, the Apex Court refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the SLP.
03. Even after the dismissal of the writ appeal and SLP, instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, the Collector, Rajgarh vide order dated 04.02.2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner as well as 13 others for regularization. The petitioner and others filed Conc No.2430 of 2018. Vide order dated 11.04.2019, this Court directed the contemnors to remain present before this Court.
04. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue Department issued a Circular dated 30.04.2019, wherein the Government divided the post into two categories i.e. 50% of seats to be filled by way of a direct selection process and the rest by way of regularization from daily wages / process servers. The respondents submitted a compliance report before this Court that vide order dated 08.05.2019, a seniority list as of 01.01.2019 was prepared and it was held that only 10 Process Servers are entitled for regularization and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The said report was submitted in pending contempt petition. Vide order dated 05.11.2019, the contempt petition was dismissed by observing that the respondents have submitted a compliance report rightly or wrongly and it is not the jurisdiction of the contempt Court to examine the validity of the compliance report, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents.Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM 4
05. Hence, the present petition is before this Court inter alia on the ground that the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered in light of the Circular dated 19.10.2005 not under the latest circular which came after the judgment passed in his favour. It is further submitted that the respondents cannot issue a circular to nullify the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.4308 of 2016 & Others. The writ petition was allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- with a direction to initiate a proceeding under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding against Dr. M.K. Agrawal, who submitted incorrect information on an affidavit.
06. After notice, the respondents have filed a very brief reply by submitting that Circular dated 19.10.2005 was issued for the regularization of services of Process Servers who were discharging their duties on ad hoc basis. Under the said Circular, a gradation list was liable to be prepared. The age was relaxed but reservation was liable to be followed. It is further submitted that this Court in W.P. No.4308 of 2016 has directed to regularize the service in accordance with the Circular dated 19.10.2005. Now vide Circular dated 30.04.2019, 50% of seats are liable to be filled by the direct selection process and the rest by regularization. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
08. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Committee constituted in compliance of the direction given by this Court for the regularization of services of Process Servers, the Revenue Department, State of Madhya Pradesh issued a Circular directing all the Collectors to prepare a seniority list of Process Servers for recruitment of peon on the regular post in the month of January of every year. The age limit of the Process Server shall be relaxed and while giving the preference the guidelines for reservation be followed. It is further directed that the Class - IV post (Peon / Process Server) be filled by way of regular recruitment or regularization Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM 5 be done, then preference be given to Process Servers who are already working. In District - Rajgarh, the list of 67 Process Servers was prepared in the year 2006. In the year 2010, it reduced to 31 and when the petitioner was not regularized, he filed a writ petition along with others. By a detailed and reasoned order, all the writ petitions were allowed by directing the respondents to pass appropriate order in the matter of regularization keeping in view the policy dated 16/19.10.2005. The subsequent circulars dated 19.08.2010 and 11.03.2016 were quashed. The relevant portion is reproduced below:-
"Resultantly, the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in the matter of regularization keeping in view the policy dated 16/19.10.2005 within a period of thirty days from the date receipt of certified copy of this order.
In light of the aforesaid, the subsequent circular issued by the State Government dated 19.08.2010 is hereby quashed and the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 is also quashed."
[Emphasis Supplied]
08. The respondents / State challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ appeal and SLP but remained unsuccessful, therefore, the case of the petitioner was liable to be considered only under the Circular dated 19.10.2005. The writ petition filed earlier by similarly situated persons was also allowed vide order dated 27.01.2012 for regularization in accordance with the Circular dated 19.10.2005. Therefore, there is a consistent view of this Court in the matter of regularization of Process Server that they are entitled to be regularized in accordance with the Circular dated 19.10.2005. Therefore, the respondents even if issued a fresh circular but same have wrongly been applied in to the case of the petitioner to deny the benefit. The reservation of the 50% seats by direct recruitment and rests by way of regularization would not apply in the case of the petitioner. No such liberty was granted to the respondents to change or modify the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM 6 Circular dated 19.10.2005 or apply a new circular which is prospective in nature . The action of the respondents in issuing and that to apply the circular dated 30.04.2019 in the case of the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to overcome the power of the High Court and to nullify the order passed by this court , hence, the same is liable to be struck down.
09. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Jagdish Chandra Sharma v/s Deepti Gaur Mukherjee & Others (Civil Appeal No.476 of 2022), in which the Apex Court has held that the direction issued by the Single Judge in an order dated 17.05.2017, the appellant was entitled to be retained in service till the age of 62 years has attained finality. The lis between the parties would thus government by such operative directions. Any subsequent decision by the Full Bench would not in any way dilute the efficacy of the operative directions which had attained finality. Paragraph - 11 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-
"11. Going by the directions issued by the Single Judge in his order dated 17.05.2017, the appellant was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 62 years. The directions issued by the Single Judge had attained finality. The lis between the parties would thus be governed by such operative directions. Any subsequent decision by the Full Bench would not in any way dilute the efficacy of the operative directions which had attained finality. The lis between the parties having attained finality, the appellant would be entitled to the relief in terms of such directions."
[Emphasis Supplied]
09. In this case also, the controversy between the petitioner and respondents in respect of regularization of the Process Server has been\ put to an end by this Court W.P. No.4308 of 2016. The writ appeal and SLP filed by the respondents against the said order have been dismissed, therefore, the respondents have no authority to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM 7 dilute the aforesaid order or the relief grant to the petitioner by modifying the Circular dated 19.10.2005. Hence, the impugned Circular dated 30.04.2019 and impugned order dated 16.08.2019 are quashed. The petitioner be also regularized in terms of the Circular dated 19.10.2005 forthwith.
Writ Petition stands allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the petitioner."
3. In view of above, Writ Petition No.18160 of 2019 is disposed off. The order passed in the case of Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Verma (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case also. Impugned order dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to the petitioners is concerned, the same is quashed; and the petitioners be regularized in terms of Circular dated 19.10.2005 forthwith.
4. Intervener Tikaram Verma S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Verma in I.A. No.263 of 2021 is permitted to submit his own claim in terms of the aforesaid order before the department.
All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE rcp Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 10/19/2023 5:40:36 PM