MANGLA SUPE Vs. M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner ventilating her grievance that respondents have not regularized the services of the petitioner soon after completion of 2 years of service on the work charge contingency establishment on which she was given the compassionate appointment, in violation of the circular of the respondents and on account of her delayed regularization done in the year 2005, she has been put to suffer financial loss. It is contended by the petitioner that the circulars were issued specifically providing that such regularization was required to be done within a period of 2 years and in fact this was done in respect of one Smt. Gulab Bai Soni but the similar benefit was not extended to the petitioner, as a result she was denied certain benefits of reimbursement of the tuition fees paid by her for the higher studies of her children. Since such prayers were rejected, the petitioner was required to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the late husband of the petitioner was in the employment of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (herein after referred to as 'Board'). The husband of the petitioner met with a train accident in the year 1990 and died on 27-9-1990 leaving behind the petitioner, two sons and a daughter. The petitioner being the widow and dependant of late Shri Rajendra M. Supe, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application was kept pending for about 8 years by the Board and ultimately the same was allowed in the year 1998 when compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant Grade-Ill in the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the said post with a specific condition that the petitioner was appointed in the work charge contingency establishment initially for a period of 2 years and on rendering satisfactory services, the petitioner will be regularized. Such an order was issued on 13-1-1998. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined the services, started working but her claim was not considered for regularization. It is further contended that the Board has issued a circular on 27-2-1982 wherein it was categorically provided that the widows of the deceased employees of the Board, who are given compassionate appointment as Office Assistant Grade-Ill will not be required to undergo any training and will be regularized after a period of 2 years without insisting on passing the recruitment test, subject to their services being satisfactory. It was also made clear in this circular that the aforesaid relaxation as given was only for the widows and not for the children or dependants of deceased Board employee, who were granted the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) Yet another circular was issued by the respondents in the year 1997 wherein it was provided that those who were appointed in the work charge contingency establishment, were to be regularized on completion of 2 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that though she has completed successfully and satisfactorily 2 years of service in the month of January, 2000, yet she was not regularized. A similarly situated person namely one Smt. Gulab Bai Soni was regularized in service. It is contended by the petitioner that she was, thus, discriminated in hostile manner. Later on the order of regularization was issued in respect of petitioner in the year 2005 precisely on 30-9-2005 but she was granted the benefit of regularization from the date of order passed by the authorities and not from the date she has completed 2 years of service. However, this regularization was again done in terms of the circular issued by the Board. Again the appointment was made on probation of 2 years and it was said that in case during the period of probation if the services are not found satisfactory, the period of probation can be extended.