Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Bahadur Lal Usrete v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

    WP-4481-2016 (BAHADUR LAL USRETE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 22-03-2016 Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

    Shri S.K. Dwivedi,learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State on advance notice.

    Petitioner was appointed as Watchman (Chowkidar) on daily wages with effect from 1980. He was transferred to the establishment of respondent No. 4. Thus, it is apparent that he is an employee engaged on daily wages prior to 31.12.1988.

    Various similarly situated persons have been regularised during such period but despite rendering more than 23 years of service, his case for regularisation has not been considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs.

    Uma Devi reported in (2006 )4 SCC 1 directed to consider the case of such employees by framing a policy and to regularise them. Despite submitting representation Annexure P/5, no steps have been taken while other similarly situated persons are serving after their regularisation. In view of the foregoing, prayer is made to direct the respondents to consider his case for regularisation and to pass appropriate orders.

    On the other hand, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, learned Dy. Advocate General contends that the government is having no objection to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation.

    In view of the foregoing, without commenting on merit, at this stage this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and as per the policy framed by the Government. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four months. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for regularisation, appropriate order be passed in this regard otherwise by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the claim may be rejected. It is suffice to observe that the petitioner can take recourse of law afresh on passing the order in accordance with law.

    With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

    (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bahadur Lal Usrete v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
    (Mar 22, 2016)