Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2026 MPHC-JBP 50160
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
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
Neutral Citations
2026 MPHC-JBP 50160
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Bharat Kumar Rawat v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

    AT JABALPUR

    BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH ON THE 9thOF JULY, 2026

    WRIT PETITION No. 26189 of 2026

    BHARAT KUMAR RAWAT

    Versus

    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

    Appearance:

    Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yash Soni, learned P.L. for the respondent/State

    ORDER

    1. 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 his initial appointment i.e. 22.11.1995 with all consequential benefit"

    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

    1

    (VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)

    JUDGE

    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 19.02.2026 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. P/-

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bharat Kumar Rawat v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
    (Jul 9, 2026)