Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Singhal vs Nagar Panchayat Banmore on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
1 WP-14576-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14576 of 2021
RAVI SINGHAL
Versus
NAGAR PANCHAYAT BANMORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Ms. Krati
Sachdev - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Devendra Chobey - Advocate for respondent no.1.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the respondents to accept his
joining from the date he tendered the joining i.e. 21.06.2021, and to grant
him all consequential benefits. He has also prayed for a direction to the
respondents to grant him the benefit of special allowance as per the circular
dated 05.04.2016, and further to consider him for regularization in
accordance with the policy framed by the State Government.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the advertisement
issued by respondent no.1, and after undergoing a selection process by way
of interview, he was appointed to the post of Computer Operator on a
monthly honorarium of Rs.4,000/- vide order dated 30.11.2010. It is averred
by him that although his appointment was initially up to 31.03.2011, he was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
2 WP-14576-2021
permitted to continue working as a Computer Operator till the year 2021. He
has further submitted that the Mayor-in-Council, in its meeting held on
03.10.2012, resolved to continue him on the said post.
3. The petitioner has further averred that the Urban Administration and
Environment Department issued a circular dated 05.04.2016, whereby the
special allowance payable to persons working temporarily in local bodies
was enhanced. As per the said circular, persons who had worked for 10 to 20
years on daily wages were entitled to a special allowance of Rs.1,500/- per
month, while those who had completed more than 20 years of service were
entitled to Rs.2,500/- per month. It is submitted by him that when the
petitioner raised his claim for payment of special allowance and for
regularization of his service in accordance with Government policy,
respondent no.1 became annoyed and started harassing him. In paragraph 5.9
of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that respondent no.1 harassed
him by deducting his salary, marking his absence, and compelling him to
perform duties beyond prescribed working hours, sometimes extending up to
24 hours. It is his case that, due to such conduct, he went into depression and
attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison, as a result of which he
was hospitalized. Consequently, he remained absent from duty from
19.05.2021. The petitioner has further averred that he resumed duty on
21.06.2021; however, he was not permitted to join by respondent no.1.
Despite repeated requests, when he was not allowed to join, he filed the
present petition.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
3 WP-14576-2021
petitioner was engaged as a Computer Operator after following due process
of selection and, therefore, is entitled to be considered for regularization in
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, as well as the policy
framed by the Government vide circular dated 08.02.2008. It is further
submitted by him that the petitioner is also entitled to special allowance at
the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month as per the circular dated 05.04.2016;
however, the said benefit has been denied to him. It is contended that when
the petitioner raised his claims, he was harassed, which led to his
hospitalization due to consumption of poison. Due to these circumstances, he
remained absent from 19.05.2021 to 21.06.2021, and when he resumed duty
along with medical certificate, he was not allowed to join. It is submitted that
the action of respondent no.1 is arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner ought
to have been permitted to join, considering that his absence was due to
unavoidable circumstances. He, therefore, prayed for issuance of appropriate
directions against respondent no.1.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents disputed the
contention that the petitioner was appointed after following due process of
selection. According to him, the petitioner’s engagement was made without
following any prescribed selection procedure and, therefore, he has no right
to continue on the post indefinitely. He also raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel
further referred to the order dated 30.11.2010 to submit that the petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
4 WP-14576-2021
services were liable to be terminated if he remained absent for more than one
month. Therefore, the action of respondent no.1 in not allowing him to re-
join is in accordance with the terms of his engagement. He thus prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended
that no disputed questions of fact arise in the present case, as the petitioner
has admittedly worked from 30.11.2010 to 19.05.2021, and therefore,
relegating him to an alternate remedy is not warranted.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Computer Operator by
respondent no.1 vide order dated 30.11.2010. Although, the petitioner asserts
that he was appointed after following due selection process, the said fact has
been denied by respondent no.1. No material is available on record to
support the petitioner’s contention that he was appointed after following
selection process. A perusal of the order dated 30.11.2010 reveals that the
appointment was purely temporary and valid up to 31.03.2011. Though the
petitioner was allowed to continue beyond the said period, no formal order of
extension has been placed on record. The appointment order further
stipulates that if the petitioner remain absent for more than one month, he
would be liable to be removed without notice. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner remained absent from 19.05.2021 to 21.06.2021 i.e. for more than
one month. Therefore, prima facie, the action of respondent no.1 in not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
5 WP-14576-2021
permitting him to join appears to be in consonance with the condition of his
engagement.
9. In paragraph 5.9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that
his absence was due to harassment by respondent no.1 which including
salary deductions, wrongful marking of absence, and compelling him to
work beyond duty hours, sometimes up to 24 hours. He has further alleged
that such conduct led him to depression and hospitalization. These
allegations have been specifically denied by respondent no.1.
10. In order to claim reinstatement, the petitioner is required to
establish that his absence was due to the alleged harassment. This involves
serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has
an efficacious alternative remedy under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
11. The Apex Court dealt with issue of alternate remedy in the context
of ID Act, in the case of U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey reported
in (2005)8 SCC 264 , and held as under:
“20. In a catena of decisions it has been held that writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained
when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless
exceptional circumstances are made out.
21. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh [(2004) 4 SCC 268 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 637] it
was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or
obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore,
provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate fromSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:123416 WP-14576-2021
the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a
very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person
who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided
under the statute. To same effect are the decisions in Premier
Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC
496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70] , Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna
Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC
110 : AIR 1995 SC 1715] , Chandrakant Tukaram
Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad [(2002) 2 SCC 542 :
2002 SCC (L&S) 317] and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.
Eldred [(1998) 6 SCC 549 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1611] .
22. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110 : AIR 1995 SC 1715] it
was observed as follows : (SCC pp. 91-92, para 28)“[A] speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for
resolution of disputes arising between workmen and
their employers. The idea has been to ensure that the
workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil
courts with their layers upon layers of appeals and
revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the
workmen can ill-afford. The procedures followed by
civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a
prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As
against this, the courts and tribunals created by the
Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these
procedural laws nor is their award subject to any
appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the
workmen and their representatives can themselves
prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are
empowered to grant such relief as they think just and
appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in
many cases. They can make and remake the contracts,
settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards
are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies
subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:123417 WP-14576-2021
therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that
disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums
created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the
entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments
concerning workmen. This legislative policy and
intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in
interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising
under them.”
23. In Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. [(1964) 6
SCR 913 : AIR 1964 SC 1260] the Constitution Bench of this
Court observed as follows : (SCR p. 920)
“It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts
under Act 226 are very wide, but it is not suggested by
Mr Chatterjee that even these powers can take in within
their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which this
contention seeks to raise. Therefore, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the contention, we would
confirm the finding of the High Court that the proper
remedy which is available to the appellants to ventilate
their grievances in respect of the said notices and
circulars is to take recourse to Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, or seek relief, if possible, under
Sections 74 and 75 of the Act.”
The above position was recently highlighted in Hindustan Steel
Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees Union [(2005) 6 SCC 725
: (2005) 6 Scale 430].
24. Accordingly, the conclusion is inevitable that the High Court
was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. Usually when
writ petition is entertained notwithstanding availability of
alternative remedy and issues are decided on merits, this Court is
slow to interfere merely on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case have special
features, which warrant interference.”
12. So far as the claim for regularization is concerned, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12341
8 WP-14576-2021
must first be in service to claim such relief. Even otherwise, he is at liberty to
raise an industrial dispute in this regard also.
13. Consequently, since the matter involves disputed questions of fact,
the petition is not entertained and is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to avail the remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 04/18/2026
04:04:48 PM
