1 W.P No.13727/2003
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.13727/2003
PETITIONER : RAMAKANT MISHRA
Vs.
RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P.
AND OTHERS.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha.
For the respondents : Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Govt. Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(19/01/2010)
The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the
order dated 26.5.1999 whereby the petitioner, who was asked to
work as a typist, has been relieved to perform the same work for
which he was initially engaged i.e. Chowkidar.
2. It is stated by the petitioner in para 6.13 of the petition that he
has filed two Original Applications; O.A No.3163/1994 (W.P
No.9200/2003) and O.A No.488/1995 (W.P No.9379/2003)
challenging his termination dated 2.2.1995 and seeking
regularization.
3. From a perusal of the record of W.P No.9200/2003 it is
apparent that the petition, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed
as the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy of
filing a case before the Labour Court and as the petitioner had also
been directed to join his duties. It is further clear from a perusal of
2 W.P No.13727/2003
the order passed by this Court in W.P No.9379/2003 that the
petition, filed by the petitioner, was disposed of with a direction to
the respondent authorities for considering his case for regularization
in accordance with the stipulations mentioned in the order passed by
this Court dated 22.6.2004. It is further informed by the learned
counsel for the respondent State that subsequently, in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4
SCC 1, wherein appointments by way of regularization has been
held to be unconstitutional, certain directions and instructions have
been issued by the State Government for considering cases of
persons working for a long period for regularization as a one time
measure.
4. It is to be noted that this Court while disposing of W.P
No.9379/2003, filed by the petitioner, has already held that the
petitioner shall be permitted to continue in view of the interim order
passed by the Tribunal till the matter is finally decided by the
competent authority of the State Government and, therefore, the
aforesaid interim arrangement till decision in the petitioner’s matter
shall continue if the matter is not already been decided by the State.
5. In the light of the above, the present petition is also disposed
of. The petitioner’s case be also scrutinized on his making an
application to that effect for consideration in accordance with the
circular/instructions issued by the State Government subsequent to
3 W.P No.13727/2003
and pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Umadevi (supra).
6. With the aforesaid direction the petition, filed by the petitioner,
stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
shall be no order as to the costs.
( R. S. JHA )
JUDGE
19/01/2010
mms/-