Mukesh Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
1 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 23128 of 2024
MUKESH SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shr B.M. Patel - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Rajkumar Awasthi & Shri C.S.Roman - Advocates for respondents No.3 to 5.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“7.1 That, the respondent authority may kindly be directed to consider
the case of petitioner and grant the regular pay scale to the petitioner
since the date of appointment & arrear and other consequential benefits.
7.1(a) That, order annexure P/1 dated 06.12.2023 & Annexure P/11
dated 22.06.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed.
7.1(b) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed To consider
the case of petitioner and regularize the service of petitioner on the post
of data entree operator since the date of initial appointment i.e. since
the Jan year 2003.
7.2 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
2 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it is the second round of
litigation. Earlier, this Court had directed to decide the pending representation in
accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, respondents
rejected the representation vide impugned order dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure P-11)
and then again respondents justified the aforesaid rejection order vide order dated
06.12.2023 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as
contract employee on the post of Data Entry Operator. It is submitted that now
petitioner has already completed 23 years in the respondent department and till yet
case of petitioner pertaining to regularization has not been considered by
respondents.
3. Per contra , learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for petitioner by supporting the order impugned.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Initially, petitioner was appointed in the year 2003 on the post of Data Entry
Operator on contract basis and now petitioner has completed 23 years' services as
Data Entry Operator on contract basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held
in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and
Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 221 that outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate
precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is
inherently perennial. The Supreme Court, in the case of, Dharam Singh & Ors v.
State of U.P. And others [Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018] has held as under:
“17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the
State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments)
is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It
cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most
basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
3 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in
its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends the promise of
equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in
public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason
and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism”
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments
must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with
evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned
posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered, why
similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the
chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices
running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the
material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we
issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts :
All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from
24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a
fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh
decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment
(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create
supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III
(Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard
or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On
regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than
the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants
shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
4 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service
shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears : Each appellant
shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the
pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular
pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts
actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall
be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three
months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry
compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default
until payment.
iii. Retired appellants : Any appellant who has already
retired shall be granted regularization with effect from
24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation,
arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension,
gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and
terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants : In the case of Appellant No. 5
and any other appellant who has died during pendency,
his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the
arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together
with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with
clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit : The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file
an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case
after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which
further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for
years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
5 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of
clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing,
create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial
directions in letter and spirit . Delay to follow these obligations is not
mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes
livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have
set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full
regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of
compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into
outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
6. Vide order impugned dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure P-11), the respondents
have rejected the case of petitioner for regularization by only stating that the Court
has not directed to give regularized pay-scale to petitioner and representation has
not been considered on the basis of GAD Circular dated 07.10.2016 and rejected it
by stating that the Court has not directed to give regular pay-scale.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi and etc. Vs. Union
of India and others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055 has held as under:
“ 80. The service records of Bahuru Sahu and Pitamber Jha would also
reflect that they were, after initial appointment as casual labourers,
conferred temporary status, w.e.f. 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992 and
continued as temporary status casual labourers till their date of
superannuation 30.04.2008 and 31.10.2015 respectively. The period
being in excess of minimum qualifying service of ten years for
entitlement of pension, they would be entitled to grant of all retiral
benefits as available under the Rules.
81. Insofar as the contention of the Respondents with regard to delay
and laches is concerned, it is well settled that pensionary benefits
constitute a continuing cause of action, and a claim for pension cannot
be defeated solely on the ground of delay. At the same time, the claim
for arrears is required to be balanced with settled principles governing
limitation. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
6 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
indicate that the Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary
benefits prior to filing of the respective Original Applications before the
Tribunal. In such circumstances, while the entitlement of the Appellants
to pensionary and consequential retiral benefits stands established, the
arrears thereof, wherever applicable, shall remain confined to the
period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing of the
respective Original Applications before the Tribunal, consistent with
settled principles governing service jurisprudence.
82. Consequently, Appellant, Bhikhani Devi, being the widow and legal
representative of Late Suraj Sah, shall be entitled to pensionary benefits
accrued to Late Suraj Sah, if any, together with admissible family
pension. Similarly, Appellant, Bahuru Sahu shall be entitled to
pensionary and consequential retiral benefits in accordance with law.
However, the arrears payable to them shall remain confined to the
period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing of the
Original Application before the Tribunal.
83. Likewise, Appellant, Pitamber Jha, who superannuated from service
on 31.10.2015, shall also be entitled to pensionary and consequential
retiral benefits in accordance with law from the date of his retirement.
84. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings recorded
hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned
Judgments passed by the High Court proceeded on an erroneous
interpretation of the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. The
same are unsustainable in law and are, therefore, set aside.
85. The Respondents are accordingly directed to compute and release
the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to the
Appellants in accordance with law within a period of three months from
the date of this judgment. In case of default, interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable to the
appellants.
86. The Appeals are allowed in above terms. ”
8. Considering the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondents to consider the case of petitioner pertaining to regularization in
accordance with law keeping in view the Circular dated 07.10.2016 issued by
General Administration Department, State of M.P. and in the light of decisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26269
7 WP. No. 23128 of 2024
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), Shripal & Another
(supra), Dharam Singh & Ors (supra), Sukhendu Bhattachar Jee and others v.
The State of Assam and others 2026 Livelaw (SC) 528 and Bhola Nath v. The
State of Jharkhand and others (C.A. No.-000657-000657 – 2026) without getting
influenced by the earlier rejection orders dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure P-11) and
06.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and decide the same in accordance with law within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM