RAMESHWAR PRASAD PYASI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed being aggrieved of inaction on the part of the respondents in not giving benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment despite the fact that petitioners who are appointed as daily wage Diploma Engineers were appointed on various dates whereby petitioners were respectively regularized vide order dtd. 3/10/2009 in which name of petitioner Rameshwar Pyasi appears at serial no. 5 whereas petitioner Narendra Vishwakarma was regularized vide order dtd. 4/10/2008 in which his name appears at serial no. 3 and third petitioner Shri Praveen Kumar Tiwari was regularized w.e.f. 7/01/2009 as diploma holder Sub Engineer (Civil). In all the three writ petitions, petitioners are claiming benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment with a further direction to pay, arrears of difference of regular pay scale of Sub Engineer to the petitioners with all consequential benefits and also to place the petitioner above respondent nos. 4 to 8 in the seniority list and also grant consequential seniority. It is submitted that permanent classification/order of regularization has given them cause of action to file these petitions.

(2.) The State Government has filed its return and has categorically stated that petition is misconceived. Petitioners were appointed as daily wage Sub Engineers on various dates. Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Pyasi had filed Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal bearing no. 82/1995 which was transferred to the High Court on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal and was registered as W.P. No. 9451/2003. This petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 29/04/2004 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and, thereafter, case was considered for regularization in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and, therefore, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

(3.) Similarly, in case of Narendra Kumar Vishwakarma, it is submitted that petitioner who was appointed as daily wage Sub Engineer in 1990, his services were dispensed with. Petitioner had approached the Labour Court which vide order dtd. 13/11/1999 directed for reinstatement of the petitioner with a further direction to take action in regard to regularization etc. in accordance with law. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the State before the Industrial Court was dismissed and, thereafter, case of petitioner Shri Narendra Kumar Vishwakarma was considered for regularization in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra).