Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2015
WP-9813-2015
(SHYAMLAL KEWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
02-07-2015
Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
It is stated that this Court in W.P. No. 9244/2015 involving similar
issue has passed the following order :-
âThe petitioner has filed this petition being
aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2015 by which the
Authority concerned has conducted an enquiry
against the orders of regularization passed by one
Shri L.R. Mina erstwhile Assistant Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department, Sidhi and on finding
that the orders passed by him were illegal and had
been passed by not following the procedure
prescribed by law and without authority of law, has
cancelled the orders of regularization of several
persons including the petitioner and have directed
that the persons shall be treated to be daily wagers.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order has been passed without issuing
any show cause notice to the petitioner and without
examining the fact as to whether the petitioner was
infact eligible for being granted benefit of
regularization under the circular of State Government
dated 16.05.2007.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
it is observed that the authorities have not levelled
any allegation against the petitioner, but have infact
cancelled the orders of regularization on account of
the illegalities committed by Shri L. R. Mina the then
Assistant Commissioner.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the
Committee for regularization, constituted by Shri L.R.
Mina the erstwhile Assistant Commissioner, was not
in accordance with law and the orders passed by him
were without jurisdiction and it is in such
circumstances the orders have been cancelled. The
order also indicates that the orders of regularization
were contrary to the circular dated 16.5.2007 which
was issued pursuant to the decision of the Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order
that the respondent authorities have got a detailed
enquiry conducted in the matter against Shri L. R. Mina and by recording a finding that he has committed illegalities and has exceeded his authority while passing the orders of regularization, have proceeded to cancel all the orders passed by him and in such circumstances as the authorities have found that illegalities have been committed by Shri L. R. Mina, no useful purpose would, in any case, have been served in case a show cause notice would have been issued to the petitioner as he would have and is in no position to justify or reply to the illegalities that have been committed by Shri L. R. Mina. In other words, issuance of a notice would have been a useless formality and futile exercise. The Supreme Court in the cases of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54, State of Manipur and others vs. Y. Token Singh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 65 and Haryana Financial Corporation and Another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 and Hitendra Singh S/0 Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth by Registrar and others, (2014) 8 SCC 369 as well as of this court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006 (3) MPHT 39, has held that in such circumstances, an individual employee concerned is not required to be given show cause notice as the action is being taken on account of illegality committed by the appointing authority and lack of jurisdiction in such authority to pass the orders. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court have been rendered after the decision of this Court by Annexure P-8.
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any case to grant ad interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition moreso as the present case is one where glaring and apparent illegalities have been committed by the officer issuing the order and as the petitioner can be adequately compensated in case the petition is ultimately allowed.
It is, however, made clear that the authorities are not prevented or prohibited from reconsidering the case of the petitioner for regularization on their own or on the application of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and in accordance with the circular issued pursuant thereto.
However, as it is pointed out that a writ appeal which has been registered as W.A. No. 128/2015 against the interim order passed by the authority dated 21.01.2015 is pending before this court, issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week.â It is further stated that similar petitions (W.P. Nos. 9238/2015 and 9249/2015) are also pending.
In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to the respondents on both counts on payment of p.f. within seven days, failing with the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. As prayed, list this petition along-with aforesaid petitions.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE