RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Servant - name of junior duly considered and also regularised on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer -.- name of petitioner directed to be considered.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this petition being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents' in not considering his claim for regularization in the post of Sub-Engineer, whereas Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, who is junior to the petitioner, has been regularized. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as educated labour in the department on 1.5.1988, thereafter continued to work on various dates, but still he is working as daily wager and his services have not been regularized so far. On the contrary one Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya junior to the petitioner has been regularized. It is the case of the petitioner that Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya was appointed subsequent to the petitioner, in fact he was appointed in the year 1990 after his services were initially terminated by the State Government. Bringing on record an order Annexure P-1 dated 11.11.1998 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 507/1996, wherein one Ravindra Sharma, who was also a daily wage employee appointed in the year 1988 like the petitioner, claimed regularization inter alia on the ground that Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya respondent No. 4 in OA No. 507/96 has been regularized. Considering the same, State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.1998 has directed the State Government to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization with effect from the date the regularization order was passed in the case of Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya. Against the aforesaid order of the State Administrative Tribunal it seems that a writ petition was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of State Administrative Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeals No. 7035/2001 and 7036/2001 were filed before the Supreme Court by the employees concerned, who had claimed regularization and seniorioty to Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya. The SLP was allowed vide order dated 8.10.2001 and the order of the Tribunal was affirmed.

(3.) ON notice being issued respondents have filed reply, in which respondents do not indicate as to why the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and what is the difference in the matter from the other employees like Vishambharsingh Bhadoriya, Ravindra Sharma and Ram Niwas Rajput. On the contrary, respondents have simply stated that vacant posts are not available, therefore claim of the petitioner has not been considered.