Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: regularisation of services in Anil Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2016Matching Fragments
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20003/2015 had passed Higher Secondary Examination and had obtained Diploma in Domestic Electrical Installation. Sometime in the year 1983 the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on the post of Wireman. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1265/2003 seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The petitioner by order dated 12.1.2004 was regularized on the post of Vaccinator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-3200/-. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74 employees including the petitioner was cancelled, which was the subject matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petition, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.9.2005, by which, the order dated 10.8.2005 directing cancellation of order of regularization was quashed and the respondent was granted liberty to prepare seniority list and to hear the petitioners and thereafter to pass an order of de-regularisation, if warranted. In compliance of order passed by the High Court, the order dated 10.8.2005 was cancelled vide order dated 19.9.2005. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 27.8.2011 was issued which was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions before this Court which was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with directions to the Commissioner to decide the matters after considering the response given by the petitioner expeditiously and giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of four months and to communicate the decision thereof to the petitioners within same time. The petitioners in the Bunch were also granted liberty to challenge the decision if the same is adverse to their interest, by way of appropriate proceeding, which will be decided on its own merits. In pursuance of aforesaid order, impugned orders of de-regularisation of services of the petitioners have been passed.
32. It is pertinent to note that Corporation itself had framed a scheme for regularisation of services of the daily wage employees and the orders of the regularisation of services of the petitioners have been passed in the year 2003 i.e. prior t decision in Umadevi'v case (supra). A comparative chart to indicate the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notices and in the impugned orders in order to ascertain whether there is compliance with the principles of natural justice, is reproduced below:-
his
d) Since he regularistion
was Higher without
secondary, following
therefore, seniority was
possessed valid
requisite
qualification
a) Regularised
a) He was
as Notice
regularized
Server
on31.1.04 as
(General) on
Notice Server,
31.1.04.
whereas in note
sheet there is
b) His name mention of
was at regularisation a) The fact that no post of Notice
sr.No.226 of on post of Writer, was vacant was not mentioned
seniority list, Notice Writer. in the show-cause notice, yet the
therefore, Thus, no post of same was made the ground for
seniority was notice writer. passing the order of de-regularisation
not followed Thus, of services of petitioner.
regularisation
Sanjay Mishra was against the
c) Since he rules. b) Since the case of petitioner was
(Petitioner No.2) considered with reference to
passed M.A.
therefore, gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
possessed b) In seniority and not with reference to gradation
requisite list dt. 09.12.03 list prepared in 2009, in which the
qualification of his name was at name of the petitioner does not
sr.no.226. He appear, therefore, it is not possible to
8th pass. not filed infer whether principle of seniority
document with was violated.
reply showing
d) Appointed
his
as daily wager
regularisation
after 31.12.88,
without
therefore, not
following
eligible on the
seniority was
date of
valid.
regularisation
a) Regularised
as peon
(general) on
31.1.04
a) Regularised
b) His name at as Notice
sr.no.263 of Server on
seniority list 31.1.04,
09.12.03, whereas note-
therefore, sheet mentions
seniority was regularisation
a) The fact that no post of Notice
not followed on post of
Server was vacant, was not
Notice Writer.
36. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned orders of de-regularisation of services of the petitioners dated 19.11.2015 are hereby quashed. The Corporation may take action for de-regularisation of services of the petitioners, if so advised, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi's (supra) particularly in the light of observations made in paragraph 53 of the decision. Needless to state, the respondent-Corporation shall first prepare the seniority list containing the names of petitioners as directed vide order dated 01.9.2005 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8359/2005, after inviting objections, and thereafter may issue show- cause notices to the petitioners containing precise grounds, on which, action of de-regularisation of services of petitioners is sought to be taken. The show-cause notices shall clearly state the documents which the petitioners, in the opinion of respondent, are required to produce in support of their claim. Needless to state, the respondent- Corporation shall pass speaking orders.