ROBIN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed arising out of the order dated 5.1.2018 whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking the relief of classification and grant of pay scale to the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the employee of Water Resources Department has initially preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No.3767/2016 and was finally decided vide order dated 28.06.2016. It is further alleged that the respondents have passed an order of classification of the petitioner long back in the year 2006 wherein the name of the petitioner reflects at S.No.141 and he is shown to be classified w.e.f. 10.10.1987 on the post of driver. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that without cancellation of the order with respect to the classification the authorities have examined the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions given by this Hon'ble Court as pointed out herein above and have passed the impugned order dated 5.1.2018 whereby the authorities have observed that as the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and de hors the rules and as the petitioner was not appointed as against any vacant post, therefore, he has not been appointed in pursuance to any recruitment process. No advertisement was issued for making appointment of the petitioner at the relevant time, therefore, the authorities have rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble High Court in the earlier round of litigation has only granted liberty to the authorities to examine the case of the petitioner to the extent that the classification order is intact. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions the authorities have examined the case of the petitioner and has gone to the extent of examining the initial appointment of the petitioner along with the classification order, but the fact remains that the directions which were given by this Hon'ble Court that the respondents shall verify and if the petitioner's permanent status remains intact he shall be extended the similar treatment i.e. grant of regular pay scale attached to the permanent employee from the date of classification as permanent employee. It is submitted that the present petitioner was made permanently classified by order dated 13.07.2006 classifying him from the date 10.10.87. The aforesaid order was never cancelled by the authorities at any point of time, therefore, the authorities were not having any right to examine the initial appointment of the petitioner and pass the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, the counsel for the State has submitted that in pursuance to the liberty extended by this Court in the earlier round of litigation they have examined the case of the petitioner and has found that the initial appointment of the petitioner was itself not in accordance with law and he was not appointed against any vacant post. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and exercising the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Court they have examined the initial appointment order of the petitioner and found that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was contrary to the law, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. The respondents/authorities have further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Mansukhlal Saraf vs. Arun Kumar Tiwari being W.P. No.198/1999 wherein there was a specific direction to the Chief Secretary of the State to check the illegal appointment of the employees and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance to the same the authorities have exercised the liberty granted by the Courts and have passed the impugned order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.