DIPENDRA KU. PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Petition, the Petitioners have sought the relief of regularization in service at par with the Private Respondents who are stated to be the juniors.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is that the respondent/Municipal Corporation has framed a consolidated seniority list of Daily rated employees and in the said list, in Public Works Sec. , the names of Petitioners are at S.No.253, 113 and 249 whereas the names of Respondents No.4 and 5 are at S.No.260 and 261 despite which the respondents No.4 and 5 have been granted the benefit of regularization to the post of Time Keeper vide Order Annexure P-4 issued in the year 2022 whereas the Petitioners have been left out for such consideration.

(3.) The respondents have contested the said case of the Petitioners on the ground that the representation of the Petitioners has been turned down vide Order Annexure R-2 dtd. 19/1/2024 whereby it has been decided by the Corporation that the regularization shall be carried out only as per the seniority of the employees and since the sufficient number of vacant posts are not available, therefore, the Petitioners have not been regularised. It is further contended that the private respondents have been regularized only in compliance of Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.329/2015 and bunch of cases whereby this Court had directed the said private respondents to be given the benefit of permanent Time keeper as these persons had approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court at some very early point of time had directed their classification and since these Petitioners have never approached the Labour Court and there was no Order of classification in favour of these Petitioners therefore, these Petitioners have not been regularized at par with private respondents.