RAJJULAL BURMAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is seen from the proceedings that despite grant of various opportunities, no return whatsoever has been filed by respondent No. 3. It is contended by learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 that in fact the claim is made against the respondent No. 3, and since the post is sanctioned by the State Government, it was the responsibility of respondent No. 3 to extend the service benefit to the petitioner in the present case. In view of this, it is contended that no direction is required to be issued against the State.

(2.) THE claim made by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Tractor Driver. He remained in the employment continuously. Since the post of Tractor Driver was not sanctioned in the Municipal Council -respondent No. 3, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No. 187/1999, seeking a direction against the respondents to sanction the post of Tractor Driver. It was contended by respondent No. 3, who was being represented by the counsel that the post is not sanctioned, therefore, the claim of petitioner for regularization could not be considered. However, as soon as the post is sanctioned, the claim of the petitioner would be considered for regularization. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to sanction a post of Tractor Driver.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 14.09.2011 passed in W.P. No. 3412/2009 (s) [Smt. Sita Tamrakar Vs. State of M.P. and others], and has contended that all these aspects were considered by this Court on earlier occasion and, it was categorically held that the persons like petitioner would be entitled for regularization on the newly created post from the date of creation of the post. It is thus contended that the similar benefit be extended to the petitioner.