MUNNI BAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dtd. 1/12/1990, the petitioner was appointed as a Cook on daily wager for a period of 89 days, whereas respondent No. 5 was appointed as daily wager on 27/7/1994 and respondent No. 4 was appointed on 10/3/1992 on the post of Peon/Cook/Waterman. It is submitted that the respondents by adopting the method of pick and choose put the respondent No. 5 in regular service thereby paying him all benefits from 1/4/1997 and since the petitioner is a lady and was not aware of the fact that the respondent No. 5 has been considered, did not raise any objection. However, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been decided by order dtd. 27/10/2016. It is submitted that the petitioner was regularized by order dtd. 24/10/2009 and at the same time, respondent No. 4, who is placed at serial No. 12 and is junior to the petitioner, now is being reconsidered for extending the benefit of regularization from the date from which respondent No. 5 was given the benefit, i.e., year 1997. Immediately after coming to know about the said fact, petitioner made a representation, but no heed has been paid and, accordingly, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Since the relief clause was vague and, therefore, counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly asked to amend the relief clause and take a specific stand. However, it was repeatedly replied by Shri S.K. Sharma that unless and until the petitioner is reconsidered, she would not get the benefit of seniority, promotion and monetary benefits. Again Shri S.K. Sharma was asked to clarify that from which date the petitioner is seeking reconsideration, then again a very vague reply was given. Thereafter, Shri S.K. Sharma was directed to argue the matter in a chronological manner. Thereafter, Shri Sharma submitted that respondent No. 5, who was appointed on the post of Peon subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, was regularized on the post of Peon vide order dtd. 1/4/1997 and since the respondent No. 4 was discriminated and, accordingly, on a petition filed by him, coordinate Bench of this Court by order dtd. 27/10/2016 passed in W.P. No.3219/2006 has directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the respondent No. 4 by convening a screening committee for his regularization from the same date from which the respondent No. 5 was considered and was found fit. Therefore, in case, if the respondent No. 4 is granted the benefit, although he too was regularized along with the petitioner by order dtd. 24/10/2009, but he would get the benefit w.e.f. 1/4/1997 and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same consideration.