RAM VISHAL PATERIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed by employees who were initially appointed as Daily wager employees and subsequently regularized upon finding their initial appointment to be irregular, and not illegal. They in these petitions are seeking same relief of reckoning of services spent by the petitioners as Daily Rated Employees prior to they being regularized in regular establishment or in regular work charged establishment as per policy of the State Government dtd. 9/1/1990 or 16/5/2007, which was framed by the State Government for regularization of daily rated employees who had completed a requisite years of service as Daily Rated Employees and who had requisite qualification for the post and their appointments were not illegal and were only irregular.

(2.) Some of these petitioners have been regularized as per policy dtd. 9/1/1990, which was a more lenient policy having more lenient terms and conditions for regularization, because it was framed before the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, after judgment of the case of Umadevi (supra), in pursuance to directions of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench as contained in paragraph 53 thereof, the State Government came out with a stricter policy dtd. 16/5/2007, which has been modified and amended from time to time. This policy contains more strict parameters for assessing whether the employee has requisite qualification for the post and whether his appointment is illegal or mere irregular. The petitioners in these set of petitions have either been regularized in terms of policy dtd. 9/1/1990 or have been regularized in terms of subsequent policy dtd. 16/5/2007.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the Daily Wage Services of the petitioners have to be reckoned as Contingency Paid Services, because the Daily Rated Employees are paid from contingencies and when they are named as Daily Rated Employees but get paid monthly, then they are Temporary Contingency Paid Employees, who acquire deemed status of permanency as per Clause 2(c) readwith 6(3) of M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 (herein after for short referred to as "Pension Rules, 1979"). It is argued that the petitioners upon being engaged as Daily Rated Employees are in fact, holders of status of temporary contingency paid employees, because there is no other mode for payment of Daily Rated Employees as per M.P. Works Department Manual, M.P. Treasury Code and M.P. Finance Code under which payments are made in the Works Departments of the State Government. It is argued that as per Clause 2 (c) of Pension Rules 1979, permanent employee means a Contingency Paid Employee or Work Charged Employee, who completes 15 or more years of service on or after 1/1/1974 and in case of those employees who had attained the age of superannuation on or after 1/4/1981, permanent employee would mean an employee who completes 10 years of service on or after 1/1/1974.