IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 38258 of 2025 (NARESH KUMAR KHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ) Dated : 13-10-2025
Shri Praveen Verma - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Varun Jain - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. 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 petitioners 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. It is submitted that the petitioner has been working in the department for last more than 30 years. Despite the directions issued by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi - (2006) 4 SCC 1 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 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
1
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
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/3 dated 08.01.2025 in terms of policy dated 16/05/2007 along with 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. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. sp
2