Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Agrawl vs Chief Secretary State Of M.P. And 6 Ors. on 18 June, 2014
1
WP No.4044/2012
18/06/2014
Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for State.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the services
of the petitioners.
In brief, the case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder on contractual basis on 29/6/1999 and 8/10/1998 respectively. Since then petitioners are continuously working on the said post.
When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the other similarly situated persons have been regularised in service, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the similar treatment and entitled for regularisation. He has submitted that the petitioners are ready to file the representation with the relevant documents, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to decide the petitioners case for regularisation within a time bound period.
Counsel for State has no objection to such a limited 2 prayer.
Keeping in view the above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to file a detailed comprehensive representation enclosing therewith all the relevant documents. If such a representation is filed by the petitioners the same will be considered and decided by the respondent No.2 within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. If the petitioners are found entitled for regularisation the necessary benefit will be extended to them without any delay. While deciding the petitioners representation the concerned authority will duly take into account the petitioners plea that the identically placed persons have already been regularised.
c.c as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge VM