SHYAMA VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:-

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as daily wagers on 24/7/1991. However, the petitioner has been appointed as daily rated employee on 9/4/1990. It is further submitted that the services of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were regularized vide order dtd. 25/2/1992 (Annexure R/2), but the petitioner has not been given the benefit of regularization at the same time when her juniors respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were regularized. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the ill-action of the respondents, the petitioner and certain other employees filed original applications before the State Administrative Tribunal and writ petitions before this Court, which is mentioned in the order of regularization Annexure P/1 dtd. 27/9/2008. The services of the petitioner were regularized, but with condition No.8 that the petitioner would not be entitled to any seniority and arrears of monetary benefits. Being aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner had filed WP No. 4803/2011, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 30/11/2013 (Annexure P/2), by which this Court has directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization at par with the private respondents by striking of the condition No.8 of the appointment order Annexure P/1. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had submitted a representation-Annexure P/3, which was decided vide order dtd. 30/9/2015 (Annexure P/4), which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of deciding the dispute and claim of the petitioner, a committee was constituted, which, in majority, has decided to give benefit to the petitioner at par with the private respondents vide Annexure P/5. However, the said decision has not been given effect to and another meeting has been convened on 9/9/2015 (Annexure P/6) wherein again the committee has resolved that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits at par with the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that from bare perusal of the operative paragraph of the minutes of the committee's resolution, it seems that it has been written by a single member, which has been made as a committee's decision by correcting the singular opinion in to the majority opinion. On the basis of the said committee's report, the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2015 (Annexure P/4) has been passed. Hence, prayed for quashment of the order stating that it suffers from illegality and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.