- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Munna Lal Kushwaha v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 25thOF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 36521 of 2025
MUNNA LAL KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dheeraj Tiwari Pl appeared for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. That this Hon. Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately regularize the petitioner w.e.f date of their initial appointments with all consequential benefit.
ii. That any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions thought just and proper may also be issued."
2. The petitioner submit to be working in the department since almost 40 years or even more. It is his case that despite the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 having ordered for consideration of all regular appointees to be considered for regularization, the State has not carried out exercise qua the petitioner. Though the State has framed policy dated 16/05/2007 and various clarifications and modifications have been issued to the said policy but no
1
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
consideration to case of the petitioner has been carried.
3. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826) has held that the cases of the employees cannot be indiscriminatory rejected where the appointments are not illegal but only lack adherence to procedural formalities. It has been held that selective application is subversive to law and weaponizes the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) against employees who have rendered valuable services over number of decades.
4. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure P/4 dated 15/01/2025 in terms of policy dated 16/05/2007 alongwith its subsequent clarifications/modifications, so also taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.
5. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is found entitled to be regularized then all consequential benefits would follow.
6. The petition is disposed of. Astha
2
Alert