30.06.2010.
Shri Sushil Mishra for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the
respondents.
Petitioners are working in the respondents’ establishment as
ANM. Claiming regularization in service, this petition has been
filed.
Similar petitions, Writ Petition Nos. 12507/09 and 13013/09
and more than ten other cases, have been decided by a common
order dated 23.12.2009, by a Bench of this Court. In W.P.No.
12601/09 (Smt. Kalpana Dubey and others Vs. State of MP and
others), in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs.
Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and after considering
the arguments advanced by learned Advocate General, the
petitions were disposed of with the following directions:
” In view of the aforesaid, all the petitions are disposed
of finally with following directions:-
1. That the petitioner may submit a detailed representation
for his regularization as per the policy dated 16.5.2007,
subsequent clarifications and instructions issued in
continuation to the policy dated 16.5.2007 for
consideration of his case for regularization.
2. In the representation, the petitioner shall disclose his/her
eligibility for regularization, qualification, date of his
engagement in the daily wages.
3. Apart from this, the petitioner may also state his
grievance that some junior(s) to the petitioner has been
regularized in compliance of the policy dated 16.5.2007
ignoring his seniority. In this regard, petitioner shall
specifically furnish the particulars of such an employee
who has been regularized ignoring the seniority of the
petitioner. He may also agitate his case in case any
2similarly situated employee in the department has been
regularized ignoring the case of the petitioner, by raising
this issue with particulars.
4. If such representation is made by the petitioner within a
period of 60 days from today supported by necessary
documents, if any, the competent authority of the State
shall examine each and every case as per the policy
dated 16.5.2009 and pass a reasoned order in this regard
and shall communicated its decision to the petitioner
forthwith.
5. If the petitioner is found entitled for regularization as per
the policy dated 16.5.2007, the petitioner shall be
regularized as per the policy with all monitory benefits.
6. In case, the case of the petitioner has already been
examine by the respondents in compliance of the policy
dated 16.5.2007, then the respondents shall
communicate about such consideration and rejection of
the case to the petitioner forthwith within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of such representation.
7. The respondents shall complete the exercise within a
period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the
representation and shall communicate their decisions
within a period of 15 days from the date of decision by
registered A.D. mode to the petitioner.
8. It is made clear that in case the petitioner had
approached to this Court earlier at any point of time for
the same relief and any order has been passed in the
matter, petitioner shall enclose copy of that order
alongwith his representation for the information of the
respondents in this regard.
9. The representation shall be sent by the petitioner
through proper channel supported by necessary
documents and copy of this petition, for ready reference
of the concerned authority. One advance copy of the
representation shall be sent by the petitioner by
registered A.D. mode to the Head of the Department
alongwith the aforesaid papers for information and
necessary action.
10. While considering the case of the petitioner, the
respondents shall also take into consideration the policy
dated 6.9.2008 by which the daily rated employees who
have completed 10-20 years of service have been found
entitled for special allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- and
Rs.1000/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2008 and shall pass an
appropriate order in this regard.”
3
As the petitioners are working in the same capacity and their
case is also identical, this petition is also disposed of in identical
terms as indicated hereinabove. Case of all the petitioners be also
considered in the light of the directions already issued in the case of
Smt. Kalpana Dubey (supra) and a decision taken within the
period stipulated therein.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-