- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramdeen Singh 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 8thOF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 46517 of 2025
RAMDEEN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Magarde - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Varun Jain - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"7.1. Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioners in terms of policy dated 16/01/2007 issued by the State Government & all consequential benefits from the date of regularization, in the interest of justice. 7 . 2 Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including cost of litigation."
2. It is submitted that the petitioner has been working in the department since 26.11.1996. It is their 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 consideration to case of the petitioner has been carried.
3. Heard submissions and perused the record.
1
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
4. 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 indiscriminately 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.
5. Consequently, respondent No. 3/Collector (Tribal Welfare) Shahdol is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure P/3 dated 18/10/2024 in terms of policy dated 16/05/2007 (Annexure P-2) 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.
6. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is found entitled to be regularized then all consequential benefits would follow.
7. The petition stads disposed of.
PB
2
Alert