RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has come with the prayer of issuance of writ of mandamus to regularize the service of the petitioner in Municipal Council, Budhni, District, Sehore.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts indicate that petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee in Municipal Council, Budhni in the year 1987. Respondent No. 1, State of M.P. issued a circular (P-2) dated 20th June, 1995 and it was directed that process of regularization could be done of the daily wage/adhoc employees who were working before 31.12.1988. Petitioner fulfilled the conditions. Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 20/95. An order (P-3) was passed on 9.7.1999 by this Court and respondents were directed to consider the regularization in accordance with law. The respondents have not taken any action for regularization of the service of the petitioner and on the contrary the junior persons to the petitioner -namely Shri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Vijay Pal Singh and Mithilesh Kumar Malviya were regularized by them. Rajendra Kumar Yadav rendered the services w.e.f. 1.12.1987, Shri Vijay Pal Singh Senger rendered the services w.e.f. 1.12.1987 and Shri Mithilesh Kumar Malviya rendered the services w.e.f. 15.4.1988. Petitioner Ramesh Chandra Sharma rendered the services w.e.f. 30.10.1987. Petitioner is a physically handicapped person and State Govt. has directed 3% reservation for physically handicapped persons. However, wrong information was submitted by Municipal Council to the Commissioner on 11.4.1991 that no physically handicapped person was serving in the Municipal Council. Petitioner is a disabled person as evinced from the certificate (P-6). Representation has not been considered, hence the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SHRI Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the stand of the respondent Municipal Council is totally untenable. There was no break and Council by its resolution has condoned the absence and allowed joining. Thus, past services rendered by the petitioner for the period of 8-9 years have to be counted. He has further submitted that in the circular (P-2) it is clearly provided that the employees who were serving as on the date mentioned therein i.e. 31.12.1988, have to be regularized. Circular was issued on 20.6.1995. There were earlier circulars also issued for regularizing the services of such employees. The condition of 10 years service, which was fixed in the policy dated 5.6.1991 for regularization of the employees, was also deleted, hence right had ripened to the petitioner of consideration for regularization before he proceeded on leave on 21.10.1995. He was in service on 20th June, 1995, is not in dispute. Thus, when his juniors have been regularized, petitioner ought to have been regularized earlier in point of time.