DINESH KUMAR JAAT Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders dated 19.11.2015, by which, the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners who are employees of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, have been cancelled. Though common questions of law arise for consideration in this bunch of petitions, yet in different factual scenario, therefore, it is necessary to refer to the facts of each of the writ petitions, which are stated infra.

(2.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20003/2015 had passed Higher Secondary Examination and had obtained Diploma in Domestic Electrical Installation. Sometime in the year 1983 the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on the post of Wireman. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1265/2003 seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The petitioner by order dated 12.1.2004 was regularized on the post of Vaccinator in the pay scale of Rs.3050 -3200/ -. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74 employees including the petitioner was cancelled, which was the subject matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petition, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.9.2005, by which, the order dated 10.8.2005 directing cancellation of order of regularization was quashed and the respondent was granted liberty to prepare seniority list and to hear the petitioners and thereafter to pass an order of de -regularisation, if warranted. In compliance of order passed by the High Court, the order dated 10.8.2005 was cancelled vide order dated 19.9.2005. Thereafter, a show -cause notice dated 27.8.2011 was issued which was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions before this Court which was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with directions to the Commissioner to decide the matters after considering the response given by the petitioner expeditiously and giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of four months and to communicate the decision thereof to the petitioners within same time. The petitioners in the Bunch were also granted liberty to challenge the decision if the same is adverse to their interest, by way of appropriate proceeding, which will be decided on its own merits. In pursuance of aforesaid order, impugned orders of de -regularisation of services of the petitioners have been passed.

(3.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20110/2015 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Peon in the year 1981. He filed Writ Petition No.1266/2003, in which, he sought the relief of regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. Thereafter, by order dated 12.1.2004 the services of petitioner were regularized on the post of Peon. On 28.10.2015 an information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, impugned order was passed by which the services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was de -regularised.