SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. M P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking regularization to the post of Chowkidar. The case of the petitioner is that on 16/6/1984 he was appointed as daily rated employee on the post of Chowkidar and since then he is serving on the said post. But though the junior co-employees have been regularized, he has not yet been regularized.

(2.) The petitioner along with other co-employees knocked the door of this Court earlier by filing petition which was registered as M.P. No. 3251/87 (Raghvendra Prasad Pathak and others Vs. State of M.P. & others) wherein the present petitioner was figured as petitioner No. 3. This Court on 28/11/1994 passed an order directing the present respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularization within a period of three months from the date of the order. However, the case was considered by the respondents for regularization, as a result of which the present respondents filed Misc. Civil Case before this Court (MCC No. 309/95- The Housing Commissioner and others Vs. Raghvendra Prasad Pathak and others) and prayed that the time be extended to comply the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 3551/87. This Court on 20/12/1995 extended the time to comply the order up to 31/1/1996. However, no order was passed as a result of which a contempt petition was filed by the present petitioner along with other persons and the present petitioner was figured as petitioner No. 3. This contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 196/96) was decided on 7/11/1997 and the contempt proceedings were dropped by holding that the case of regularization of the petitioners was duly considered on the basis of their qualifications and seniority and after giving opportunity of hearing to them. It was further held by this Court that the contemners have shown their inability to grant necessary relief of regularization to the petitioners on account of their meager resources.

(3.) The present petitioner along with other persons filed review petition of the order dated 7/1/1997 passed in contempt petition and the review petition was registered as MCC No. 1140/97. This Court on 23/2/1998 while disposing of the review petition observed that it would be open to the petitioners to agitate their rights on the basis of their claim for continuance by way of independent proceedings.