Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramavtar Pateria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2016
WP-14124-2013
(RAMAVTAR PATERIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-02-2016
Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.8719/15, an application for modification of the order dated 11.3.2015.
Learned Government Advocate submits that in this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 1.2.2013 by which claim of the petitioners for regularisation on the post of Process Server, has been rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not working against the sanctioned post and are engaged on part-time basis only for a period from 1 st June to 30 th June. It is further submitted that engagement of the petitioners is purely temporary and for a specific period. It is also urged that the State Government is not in a position to allow the petitioners to work after 30.6.2015 and to grant them wages, as the continuance of an employee on the post of Process Server is subject to availability of the funds. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners are different than the employees whose services have been regularised by order dated 17.10.2007 and 31.1.2008, as their services were erroneously regularised and show-cause notice were issued to the aforesaid employees and is subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions. Lastly, it is urged that the petitioners in any case, cannot claim negative equality.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to information furnished to the petitioners vide communication dated 16.3.2015 has submitted that the post of Process Server is lying vacant. It is further submitted that the circulars dated 17.12.2008 and 6.9.2008 have been issued by the respondents for regularisation of services of the Process Writers. It is submitted that case of the petitioners is similar to that of employees whose services have been regularised by orders dated 17.10.2009 and 31.1.2008.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Apparently, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the employees whose services have been regularised vide orders dated 17.10.2007and 31.1.2008, the representation of the petitioners for regularisation has already been rejected vide order dated 1.2.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that even in respect of the aforesaid employees, the respondents have taken steps for de-regularisation of their services, which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions. In any case, the petitioners cannot claim any relief on the basis of negative equality. The post of Process Server is a temporary post and the employees are engaged for a period of six months initially subject to availability of the funds. The circular dated 17.12.2008 does not provide for regularization of the service of the Process Server but provide that in case of regular recruitment on the post of Peon preference should be given to Process Server. So far as, circular dated 6.9..2008 is concerned the same is the circular issued in pursuance of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 and does not pertain to regularize of service of Process Server.
For the aforementioned reasons, no mandatory direction can be issued to continue the petitioners in service. However, it would be open to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment against the post of Process Server.
Accordingly, the order dated 11.03.2015 is modified and it is directed that the respondent may consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Process Server. It is made clear that the observations have been made in this order only for the purpose of deciding the application for modification of the stay order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, I.A.No.8719/2015 is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE