Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Gautam vs State Of M.P. on 26 June, 2015
1
WP. 323/10
Vijay Kumar Gautam
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
26/06/2015
Shri Deshraj Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.B.S.Tomar, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
With the consent, finally heard.
The petitioner was initially engaged as daily rated employee on 18.12.1992 (Annexure P-1). He was terminated on 15.11.1992. Pursuant to Government's circular dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure R-2), the petitioner was reappointed by order dated 29.4.2004 (Annexure P-3). Shri Bhargav submits that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Tomar by contending that the petitioner was not reinstated, he was given fresh appointment. Thus, from the date of reappointment, he has not completed ten years, hence question of his consideration for regularization does not arise.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
2The circular Annexure R-2 on which reliance is placed begins with the following words:-
**'kklu ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa esa fnukad 31-12-1988 ds ckn ds gVk;s x;s nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok esa cgkyh dk jkT; 'kklu us fu.kZ; fy;k gSA rn~uqlkj ,sls O;fDr;ksa dks nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa iqu% lsok esa ysus ds fy;s jkT; 'kklu] fuEukuqlkj funsZ'k izlkfjr djrk gS%&** (emphasis supplied).
A plain reading of the opening words aforesaid makes it clear that the intention of the Government was to "reinstate" the daily wagers who were terminated after 31.12.1988. In the service jurisprudence, the word "reinstatement" has a definite connotation. There is a vast difference between "reinstatement" and "reappointment". Since the intention of the State was to reinstate the employees, the petitioner should be treated as reinstated. I do not find much force in the argument of Shri Tomar. Even if as per Clause-2 of Annexure R-2, the petitioner had given his consent/affidavit for reappointment, in my view, the petitioner, a poor terminated daily wager, was almost in a position like "begger cannot be a chooser" therefore, such contract entered into by the petitioner must be treated as a unconscionable contract in the light of AIR 1986 SC 1571 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another). Such contract must be treated as a void contract. The petitioner must be treated as reinstated 3 notionally from the date of his termination.
In the light of aforesaid, the petitioner has completed more than ten years of service, his case must be treated for regularization. Petitioner is directed to file representation along with copy of this order before the respondents. The respondents are directed to decide the claim of regularization by passing a reasoned order and by keeping in mind the findings of this Court and inform the outcome to the petitioner within 90 days.
Petition is disposed of.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv