Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramcharan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
1 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No.
No.17383 of 2019
RAMCHARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Chakra
Chakravarti - Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - P.L. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General
Shri Rajeev Mishra - Counsel for the respondents no. 4 and
5 /State.
WRIT PETITION No. 2803 of 2022
RAMCHARAN
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
2 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Ashok
shok Kumar Chakravarti,
Chakra Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Atul Dwivedi
Dwivedi, P.L. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General
Shri Rajeev Mishra, Counsel for the respondents no. 4 and
5 /State.
Reserved on : 23/04/2026
Post on : 24 /04/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
By way of this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of
two connected writ petitions filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The first petition (W.P. No. 17383
of 2019) seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner on
the post of Peon/Process Server. The second petition (W.P. No.
2803 of 2022) challenges the illegal conduct of the respondent
authorities, specifically Respondents No. 4 and 5, for their failure to
make payment of the petitioner’s monthly salary with effect from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
3 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
March 2021. Given the intertwined nature of the facts, grievances,
and the parties involved, both petitions are heard and decided
together.
Facts of the Case
2. The petitione
petitionerr was initially appointed as a daily rated
employee in the year 1989 and has been continuously working
under the control and supervision of the respondent authorities,
specifically Respondent No. 4 (JilaSahkariKendriya Bank Maryadit,
Raisen), on a daily wa
wage
ge basis. The petitioner has rendered more
than 30 years of continuous service with an unblemished service
record. The respondents have also regularly deducted Provident
Fund from the petitioner’s salary under the Employees’ Provident
Fund Scheme, 1952.
3. The petitioner’s services were extended from time to time,
and his work was recognized as satisfactory, leading to the issuance
of appreciation letters and experience certificates by competent
authorities. Further, Respondent No. 4 forwarded the case of the
petitioner for regularization to higher authorities on 10.12.2013.
However, no final decision was taken, and the respondent
authorities continued to pass the buck among themselves.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
4 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
4. The State Government issued circulars dated 30.05.2013 and
07.10.2016
2016 outlining policies for the regularization of daily wage
employees. In compliance with an order passed by this Court in
W.P. No. 13215/17 dated 30.08.2017, similarly situated daily wage
employees of other departments, namely RamdeenKewat,
RamdasYadav, and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, were regularized.
Seeking parity, the petitioner submitted umpteen representations,
the last being on 25.06.2018, which went unheeded, prompting the
filing of the first writ petition.
5. During the pendency of the first petition, this Court, vide
order dated 12.11.2021 in I.A. No. 8332/2021, directed the parties
to maintain status-quo
quo as it existed on that date. However, the
petitioner alleges that Respondents No. 4 and 5 began harassing and
victimizing him to pressure him into withdrawing
withdrawing the petition. The
Branch Manager forcibly restrained the petitioner from performing
his duties, hid the Attendance Register to prevent him from signing
it, and abruptly stopped the payment of his monthly salary from
March 2021 onwards. This led th
thee petitioner to file complaints with
the Administrator-cum
cum-Collector
Collector and the Superintendent of Police,
Raisen, and subsequently institute the second writ petition for the
release of his unpaid salary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
5 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
Contentions of the Petitioner
6. The petitioner contends that having worked continuously
since 1989 for over three decades with a clean record, he is legally
entitled to regularization as a permanent Class-IV
Class IV employee in light
of the State Government’s circulars dated 30.05.2013 and
07.10.2016.
.2016. The inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, malafide,
and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
7. The petitioner argues that he is being subjected to hostile
discrimination, as similarly situated employees have already been
regularized by the State pursuant to judicial orders. The deduction
of Provident Fund establishes a clear employer-employee
employer employee
relationship and the perennial nature of the work.
8. Regarding the non
non-payment
payment of salary, the petitioner submits
thatt the actions of Respondents No. 4 and 5 in withholding his
remuneration from March 2021 are vindictive and aimed at
wreaking vengeance for approaching this Court. The petitioner
asserts that the respondents deliberately created hurdles in his
functioning, hid the attendance register, and willfully disobeyed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
6 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
interim status-quo
quo order dated 12.11.2021, reducing him and his
family to a state of starvation.
Contentions of the Respondents
9. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability,
tainability, contending that the extra-ordinary
extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to seek
regularization and the petitioner ought to have approached the
Labour Court.
10. On merits, the respondents submit that the petitioner was
engaged purely on a temporary basis for specific periods, with
extensions granted according to requirement. It is contended that
the post of Peon/Process Server is a Class-C
Class C post (Support Staff)
which
ch was declared a dying cadre via Notification dated 06.04.2016
(Rule 3.5 of the applicable Service Rules). Therefore, no
regularization can be claimed against a non
non-existent post.
11. The respondents further rely on letters dated 04.10.2021 and
29.10.2021
21 issued by the Commissioner Cooperatives and Registrar
Cooperative Societies, declaring extensions of temporary Process
Servers unlawful and directing their termination upon expiry of the
current term. They state the petitioner’s last engagement order da
dated
13.07.2021 was only for 89 days, expiring on 10.10.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
7 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
12. Finally, the respondents contend that the petitioner absented
himself from work after 20.09.2021. Therefore, when the status-quo
status
order was passed on 12.11.2021, the petitioner was already out
o of
employment, as his term had ended on 10.10.2021 and was not
renewed.
Analysis and Conclusion
13. Heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The core
issues requiring adjudication are whether the petitioner is entitled to
regularization afterr rendering over three decades of service, and
whether the withholding of his salary from March 2021 by the
respondents is legally sustainable. The scope of judicial review under
Article 226 in employment matters, though circumscribed, extends to
preventing
g manifest arbitrariness and ensuring that the State acts as a
model employer. 14. The respondents have heavily relied upon the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1,which
1,which reads as follows:-
follows:
“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our
Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from
passing an order upholding a viol
violation
ation of Article 14 or in
ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the
requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:325448 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
public employment, this Court while laying down the law,
has necessarily
cessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in
terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition
among qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment,
the appointment comes to an en end
d at the end of the
contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on
daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an
end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary
employee could not claim to be made permanent on the
expiry of his term of appointment.
appointment. It has also to be
clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a
casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely
on the strength of such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due process of
selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open
to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance
of temporary employees whose period
period of employment has
come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very
nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The
High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution,
should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularisation,
ation, or permanent continuance unless the
recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the
constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had
continued under cover of an order of the court, which we
have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier
part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right
to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact,
in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in
issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the
employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it maySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:325449 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that
ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an
interim direction to continue his employment would hold
up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the
State the burden of paying an employee who is really not
required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they
do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of
its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
len
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of
the constitutional and statutory mandates.
45. While directing that appointments, temporary or
casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are
swayed by the fact that the person concerne
concernedd has worked
for some time and in some cases for a considerable length
of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an
engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not
aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the
employment with open eye eyes.
s. It may be true that he is not
in a position to bargain
bargain–not at arm’s length–sincesince he
might have been searching for some employment so as to
eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But
on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to
jettison
ison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to
take the view that a person who has temporarily or
casually got employed should be directed to be continued
permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another
mode of public appointment which is not ppermissible.
ermissible. If
the court were to void a contractual employment of this
nature on the ground that the parties were not having
equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the
court to grant any relief to that employee. A total
embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not
possible, given the exigencies of administration and ifSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:3254410 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
imposed, would only mean that some people who at least
get employment temporarily, contractually or casually,
would not be getting even that employment when securing
of such
ch employment brings at least some succour to them.
After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in
search of employment and one is not compelled to accept
a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined
to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that
one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was
accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the
consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while
accepting the employment, the person concerned knows
the nature of his
is employment. It is not an appointment to
a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by
him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or
the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of
such a magnitude as to enable the giving up up of the
procedure established, for making regular appointments
to available posts in the services of the State. The
argument that since one has been working for some time
in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even
though he was aware of the nature of the employment
when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the
jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public
employment and would have to fail when tested on the
touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
47. When a person enters a temporary employment or
gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and
the engagement is not based on a proper selection as
recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he iiss aware
of the consequences of the appointment being temporary,
casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannotSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:3254411 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being
confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post
could be made only by following
following a proper procedure for
selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the
Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of
legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced
by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot
also be held that the State has held out any promise while
engaging these persons either to continue them where
they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot
constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious
that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief
of being made permanent in the post.
48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees
thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has
treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less
than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a
pretty long period in comparison with those directly
recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for
doing similar work. The employees before us were
engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on
a wage that was made known to them. There is no case
that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who
are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves,
they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against
those
hose who have been regularly recruited on the basis of
the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an
employment on daily wages to claim that such employee
should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited
candidate, and made permanent in employment
employment,, even
assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming
equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamentalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:3254412 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
right in those who have been employed on daily wages or
temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they
have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held
by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post,
since, a regular appointment could be made only by
making appointments consistent with the requirements of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be
treated
ated equally with the other employees employed on
daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal
treatment with those who were regularly employed. That
would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be
relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even
though they have never been selected in terms of the
relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore
overruled.”
14. Moreover, the
he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggu v. Union of
India, 20244 INSC 1034, has also comprehensively dealt with this
paradigm. It has been held that where an employee has been
permitted to work for a continuously uninte
uninterrupted
rrupted period spanning
decades in this case, 30 years since 1989 the State cannot belatedly
rely on procedural irregularities in the initial appointment to deny
regularization.
15.. The defense raised by the respondents stands clearly
distinguishable on facts and law. The respondents argue that the
post of Peon/Process Server was declared a “dying cadre” via the
Notification dated 06.04.2016. However, this Court finds that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
13 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
petitioner entered service in 1989 and completed his qualifying
period for regularization long before the 2016 amendment came
into existence. Statutory
utory amendments cannot apply retroactively to
defeat the accrued rights of an employee who has been serving
continuously for decades.
16. Furthermore, the contention that the petitioner was engaged
merely on 89-day
day extensions is a classic example of unf
unfair
air labor
practice. The continuous deduction of Provident Fund since the
inception of service definitively establishes the perennial nature of
the work and shatters the illusion of a temporary “89-day”
“89
engagement. The State and its instrumentalities cannot extract work
for 30 years and then unilaterally declare the employment as
unlawful based on internal circulars of 2021.
17. The respondents have utterly failed to justify the
discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. The petitioner
has successfully
ssfully established that similarly situated employees,
namely Ramdeen Kewat, Ramdas Yadav, and Ashok Kumar
Tiwari, were regularized pursuant to Court orders. Denying the
same relief to the petitioner without any cogent distinguishing
factor is a textbook vviolation
iolation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
14 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
18. Regarding the stoppage of salary and the alleged absence of
the petitioner after 20.09.2021, the record demonstrates that the
respondent authorities actively obstructed the petitioner from
discharging his duties.
uties. The hiding of the attendance register and the
issuance of threats were clear attempts to circumvent the judicial
process. The status-quo
status quo order dated 12.11.2021 protected the
petitioner’s employment, and the respondents’ interpretation that the
status-quo
quo meant the petitioner was “out of employment” is
mischievous and rejected.
19. The non-payment
payment of salary from March 2021 is thus found to
be an arbitrary, vindictive, and colourable exercise of power by
Respondents No. 4 and 5. An employee rendering service cannot be
deprived of his livelihood, which forms an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
20. It is further pertinent to observe that, admittedly, there is no
document placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that
the petitioner was ever formally terminated or that his services were
legally put to an end. While the respondents heavily rel
relyy on the
order dated 13.07.2021 to contend that the engagement was merely
for 89 days and automatically expired on 10.10.2021, there is a
conspicuous absence of any consequential formal order dispensing
with his services. Furthermore, the respondents’ asse
assertion
rtion that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
15 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
petitioner voluntarily absented himself from work after 20.09.2021
remains a bald allegation, completely unsupported by the issuance
of any show-cause
cause notice, memo, or disciplinary proceeding for
such alleged unauthorized absence. This glaring
glaring omission lends
direct credence to the petitioner’s specific pleading that he was
forcibly restrained from signing the Attendance Register by the
respondent authorities to artificially create a break in service. In the
realm of service jurisprudence, an uninterrupted employment
spanning over three decades cannot be presumed to have
evaporated by the mere efflux of an arbitrary 89-day
89 day extension or
unsubstantiated claims of absenteeism. This is especially true when
this Court, having taken cognizance of the harassment faced by the
petitioner, had explicitly directed the maintenance of status-quo
status
vide order dated 12.11.2021. Therefore, the respondents’ claim that
the contract period had definitively ended without any formal
documentary substantiation is both factually baseless and legally
unsustainable.
21. In view of the foregoing analysis, the stand taken by the
respondents in their reply is legally untenable and is accordingly
rejected. The petitioner, having served with an unblemished record
for more than 30 years, is legally entitled to regularization under the
State’s policies and on the ground of parity.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-JBP:32544
16 W.P. No.17383/20
/2019
22. Consequently, both Writ Petition No. 17383 of 2019 and
Writ Petition No. 2803 of 2022 are hereby allowed.
23. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to regularize
the services of the petitioner on the post of Peon/Process Server as a
permanent employee with all consequential benefits, treating his
case at par with similarly situated employees who have already
been granted such relief.
24. The respondents are further directed to calculate and release
the entire arrears of unpaid salary of the petitioner with effect from
March 2021 up till the date of actual payment.
25. The entire exercise, including the issuance of the
regularization order and the disbursement of arrears of salary, shall
be completed by the respondents within a period of 60 days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
26. Pending applications
applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Arun/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-04-
2026 16:54:55