Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board Kisan Bhawan Jail Road vs Kamlesh Kumar Gupta

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
1 WA-2828-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2828 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010757812024
RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD KISAN BHAWAN JAIL ROAD AND
OTHERS
Versus
KAMLESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR
Appearance:

Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2829 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010757822024
RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD 26 KISAN BHAWAN JAIL
ROAD BHOPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJESH SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2830 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010757862024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
2 WA-2828-2024
MADHYA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
(MANDI BOARD),BHOPAL AND OTHERS

Versus
UMESH YADAV OTHERS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 &
3.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2831 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010757882024
RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD TWENTY SIX KISAN
BHAWAN JAIL ROAD BHOPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
CHANDRA SHEKSHAR DIXIT AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2832 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010757932024
RAJYA KRISHI VIPANAN BOARD AND OTHERS
Versus
KRISHNA KUMAR AGNIHOTRI AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2866 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010769102024
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
3 WA-2828-2024
ANR
Versus
SHIVRAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:

Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2867 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010769122024
M.P. RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND ANR
Versus
DINESH GURU AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2868 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010769142024
M.P. RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND ANR
Versus
HANIF KHAN AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2869 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010769152024
MADHYA PRADESH KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND ANR
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
4 WA-2828-2024
SATYA KUMAR JAIN AND ANR
Appearance:

Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 191 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010049862025
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Versus
BABULAL DEWDA AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Hitendra Kumar Golhani, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 504 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010128832025
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND
ANR
Versus
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 505 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010128842025
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
5 WA-2828-2024
ANR
Versus
RAMDAS AHIRWAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 506 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010128882025
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR
Versus
SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1915 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010388852026
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Versus
RAMASHANKAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Ruby Haldkar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.
Reserved on : 07.10.2026
Pronounced on: 26.10.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
6 WA-2828-2024
In the bunch of writ appeals WA-2828-2024, WA-2829-2024,

WA-2831-2024, WA-2832-2024, WA-2866-2024, WA-2867-2024,
WA-2868-2024, WA-2869-2024, WA-504-2025 and WA-505-2025
have been filed by Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board Kisan Bhawan Jail Road
and WA-2163-2024 is filed by Prabhulal Kushwaha and WA-2830-
2024, WA-191-2025, WA-506-2025 and WA-1915-2026 are filed by
Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board), Bhopal
through Managing Director.
2. The present writ appeals have been preferred by the
appellants/Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board and its
authorities under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing the
respective orders passed by the learned Single Judge in writ
petitions. The issues involved in these writ appeals are common,
therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this
common order. However, for the sake of convenience and clarity facts
in common are enumerated hereinafter.
Facts of the case:
3. The case of respondents/employees is that they were appointed as
daily-wage employees and were subsequently regularised on the
respective posts. The said regularisation was granted pursuant to the
recommendations of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
7 WA-2828-2024
16.05.2007. The orders of regularisation, however, provided that the

benefit would take effect prospectively, without counting the previous
service for pension and other purposes. Aggrieved by the denial of
retrospective benefits, respondents claimed parity with Shri Rajendra
Prasad Shrivastava, who had been granted the regular pay scale with
retrospective effect from 29.07.1998, along with consequential benefits.
4. The respondents/employees approached the writ court
challenging the respective orders passed by the appellant/Board,
whereby their representation seeking the same benefits as have been
extended to Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava (Assistant Sub-Inspector,
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rehli, District Sagar) was rejected. The
respondents sought direction to extend them the benefits granted to the
said employees pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2015 issued by the
Managing Director of the Board, contending that they were similarly
placed and, therefore, entitled to equal treatment.
5. The appellant/Board opposed the writ petitions, contending that
the case of the respondents was distinguishable from that of Shri
Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava as Shri Shrivastava had approached the
competent Labour Court, Sagar in an industrial dispute and had obtained
an award dated 04.06.2004 in his favour. The said award had attained
finality after the writ petition, writ appeal and special leave petition
preferred by the concerned Mandi Samiti having been dismissed.
Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, in its meeting dated
01.12.2015, recommended that Shri Shrivastava be granted the regular
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
8 WA-2828-2024
pay scale with effect from 29.07.1998 together with consequential

benefits.
6. It was further contended by the appellant/Board that the
regularisation order issued in favour of the respondents/employees
specifically provided for prospective regularisation. If
respondents/employees were aggrieved by the terms of the said orders,
they ought to have challenged them at the relevant time. Having
accepted the orders without raising any objection and having approached
the authorities after a considerable lapse of time, they could not seek
retrospective benefits merely on the basis of relief has been granted to
another employee in separate proceedings. The Board accordingly stated
that the representation of respondents/employees had been rejected by a
reasoned order on due consideration.
7. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, in substance,
holding that where relief had been extended to similarly situated
employees, the authorities were required to extend similar treatment to
other employees also who are falling within the same category. It is
further observed that merely because one employee had approached the
Court and secured relief, other similarly situated employees could not be
denied the same benefit. Accordingly, it was directed that the benefit of
Labour Court's award be extended to the petitioners as well.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant/Board has filed
writ appeals on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the material differences between the service particulars and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
9 WA-2828-2024
legal circumstances of respondents/employees and those of Shri

Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava, as well as the effect of delay and the
limited applicability of an award rendered in proceedings between
parties.
9. However, W.A.No. 2163/2024 has been preferred by an
employee (Prabhulal Kushwaha) challenging the order dated 22.09.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14607/2016, whereby his
challenge to the rejection of his claim for regularisation was
unsuccessful. He was appointed as a daily-wage Assistant Sub Inspector
in the Mandi Samiti in 1996 and claims to have completed more than 15
years of service against a vacant post. His claim for regularisation was
rejected on the ground that he had not completed ten years of service as
on 10.04.2006, in terms of the State Government's policy dated
16.05.2007. He contended that the aforesaid cut-off date is arbitrary and
that his eligibility ought to have been determined with reference to the
date of issuance of the policy. He further relies upon earlier judicial
orders directing consideration of his regularisation and parity with
similarly situated employees to contend that the denial of his claim is
discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
10.The writ appeals (W.A.No. 2830/2024, W.A. No.191/2025,
W,A.No,506/2025 and W.A. No.1915/2026 ) have been filed by the
M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, challenging the respective
orders passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions whereby the
respondents-petitioner’s case was directed to be considered for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
10 WA-2828-2024
extending the same benefit as granted to similarly situated employees.

The respondents/writ petitioners/employees claimed promotion to the
respective post on the basis of their long-standing service and
experience of discharging duties on the higher post. They contended that
the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge pertained to
retrospective seniority and was distinguishable from the present case,
which concerns promotion from the post of L.D.C. to Secretary, with no
prescribed promotional channel between the two cadres. It is further
contended that the matter is premature, as the Board is awaiting
instructions & approval from the State Government for convening a
DPC.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants/Board:
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/Board
submitted that the respective impugned orders passed by the learned
Single Judge are contrary to the settled principles of law governing
parity, delay and laches. It is also contended that learned Single Judge
erred in extending the benefit of award passed by the Labour Court in
favour of Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava and other employees to
respondents/employes, without properly appreciating the material
distinctions between the cases. He further submitted that
respondents/employees were appointed as daily-wage employees,
whereas Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava was appointed on 23.12.1989
as a 'Nakedar' and his post was upgraded to that of Assistant Sub-
Inspector in the year 1998. It was contended that the circumstances of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
11 WA-2828-2024
appointment of the employees were different, therefore,

respondents/employees can not claim the benefit of retrospective
regularisation merely on the ground of parity with Shri Shrivastava.
12. It was further submitted that Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava
had approached the competent Labour Court, Sagar, in Case No.
106/99/IDR and had obtained an award dated 04.06.2004 in his favour.
The said proceedings arose out of the dispute concerning the service
benefits of Shri Shrivastava and other employees. It is further contended
that the award was passed after consideration of the evidence adduced
before the Labour Court and was confined to the parties to dispute. The
appellant/Board had challenged the award before the appropriate forums,
but the writ petition, writ appeal and special leave petition were
dismissed. Consequently, the benefit extended to Shri Shrivastava was
in compliance of award which had attained finality and, therefore, the
same can not automatically be extended to respondents/employees.
13. Learned counsel also submitted that the regularisation of
respondents/employees were governed by the guidelines issued by the
State Government vide memorandum dated 16.05.2007. Pursuant to the
recommendations of the State Level Scrutiny Committee,
respondents/employees were regularised on the respective post. The said
orders specifically provided that regularisation would operate
prospectively and that the previous service would not be counted for
pension and other purposes. It was argued that the terms of the
regularisation order were clear and unambiguous and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
12 WA-2828-2024
respondents/employees had accepted the same without challenging it at

the relevant time. It was further contended that if respondents/employees
were aggrieved by the prospective operation of their regularisation
order, they ought to have challenged the respective orders within a
reasonable period. Instead, they approached the authorities seeking
parity with Shri Shrivastava after a lapse of several years. According to
the appellants, the claim was belated and suffered from delay and laches.
The subsequent success of another employee in separate litigation could
not revive a stale claim or confer an automatic right upon other
respondents/employees to reopen the terms of his regularisation.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submitted that
the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between a
judgment or award binding upon the parties to the proceedings and a
decision laying down a general principle of law applicable to similarly
situated persons. It was contended that an award passed by the Labour
Court in an individual industrial dispute could not be treated as a
judgment in rem so as to confer the same benefits upon every employee
who subsequently claimed similarity. The relief granted to Shri
Shrivastava was the consequence of the adjudication of his individual
dispute and the subsequent dismissal of challenges to that award. In the
absence of an independent adjudication or any legal basis for
retrospective regularisation in favour of respondents/employees, the
same relief could not be claimed as a matter of course. It was also
contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
13 WA-2828-2024
employees of the Mandi Board cadre and those belonging to the Mandi

cadre constituted distinct categories, with different employing
authorities. According to the appellants, the Managing Director was the
employer in respect of the Mandi Board cadre, whereas the concerned
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was the employer in respect of the Mandi
cadre. Therefore, the applicable service conditions and regularisation
policies could not be assumed to operate identically in every case
without examining the relevant cadre and service particulars.
15. Learned Senior counsel further placed reliance upon the
principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 437, particularly
paragraph 22.2, to contend that the principle of extending similar
benefits to similarly situated employees is subject to the recognised
exceptions of delay, laches and acquiescence. It was submitted that
employees who do not challenge an allegedly adverse action within a
reasonable time and approach the Court only after another employee
succeeds in litigation may be treated as fence-sitters and denied the
benefit of the earlier decision. According to the appellants,
respondents’/employees’ failure to challenge the terms of their
regularisation order at the appropriate time disentitled them from
claiming retrospective benefits at a belated stage.
16. The appellants further contended that the learned Single Judge
failed to take into account the decisions relied upon in the appeal
concerning delay in service matters, including B.S. Bajwa v. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
14 WA-2828-2024
Punjab, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1510, and Rabindra Nath Bose v.

Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 470. It was submitted that stale
service claims should not ordinarily be entertained where doing so may
unsettle matters that have remained undisturbed for a considerable
period and may result in administrative complications. The appellants
also referred to the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 3356 of 2020 and 3811 of 2020,
which, according to them, dealt with an identical issue and dismissed
the petitions. On these grounds, learned Senior counsel prayed that the
writ appeals be allowed, the respective orders passed by the learned
Single Judge be set aside, and the writ petitions preferred by
respondents/employees be dismissed.
Submissions on behalf of respondents/employees:
17. Per contra, the case of respondents/employees is that they were
entitled to the same treatment as had been extended to Shri Rajendra
Prasad Shrivastava, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Rehli, District Sagar. Respondent No. 1 sought parity in the matter of
retrospective service benefits, contending that the denial of such benefits
to him, while extending them to another employee, resulted in
discriminatory treatment.
18. The principal ground in support of the claim of
respondents/employees was that the appellant authorities had already
granted retrospective service benefits to Shri Rajendra Prasad
Shrivastava, including the regular pay scale with effect from 29.07.1998
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
15 WA-2828-2024
and consequential benefits, pursuant to the award dated 04.06.2004

passed by the Labour Court and the subsequent recommendation of the
State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 01.12.2015.
Respondents/employees, therefore, sought extension of the same
benefits on the ground that similarly situated employees could not be
treated differently merely because one of them had approached the
Labour Court earlier and obtained a favourable award. The case of
respondents/employees further proceeds on the principle of equality in
public employment. The learned Single Judge accepted the proposition
that where the authorities had extended a particular benefit to employees
similarly situated, the same benefit could not be denied to another
employee solely on the ground that he had not been a party to the earlier
proceedings. The learned Single Judge observed that the mere fact that
one employee had approached the Court and secured relief could not, by
itself, justify differential treatment of other similarly situated employees.
19. Respondents’/employees’ challenges were also directed against
the respective orders, whereby their representation seeking parity had
been rejected. The relief sought in the writ petitions was to quash the
said order and direct the appellants to extend the benefits granted to Shri
Shrivastava by order dated 11.12.2015. The learned Single Judge
accepted the claim and directed that the benefit of the Labour Court's
award be extended to respondents/employees as well, in letter and
spirit. Lastly, it is submitted that the principle of equal treatment
requires the authorities to examine whether the employees concerned are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
16 WA-2828-2024
similarly situated in all material respects and, if so, whether any legally

sustainable distinction exists for denying the benefit to one of them.
Submissions on behalf of Appellant/employee (Prabhulal) in WA
2163/2024:
20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
appointed as a daily-wage Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1996 and
has continuously served the respondent department for more than 15
years against a vacant post. Despite repeated representations, his
services have not been regularised. It is contended that the State
Government, by policy dated 16.05.2007, provided for consideration of
daily-wage employees who had completed ten years of continuous
service; however, fixing 10.04.2006, the date of the judgment in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, as the cut-off date for
determining eligibility is arbitrary and contrary to law. The appellant’s
eligibility ought to have been considered with reference to the date of
issuance of the policy.
21. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant’s claim for
regularisation was earlier rejected on the ground that he had been
reinstated pursuant to an award passed by the Labour Court, and this
Court had thereafter directed consideration of his case for regularisation
with consequential benefits. It is argued that the respondents could not
subsequently reject his claim on a different ground of non-completion of
ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. It is also contended that similarly
situated daily-wage employees have been regularised despite having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
17 WA-2828-2024
faced the same objection, and denial of similar treatment to the appellant

is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. Placing reliance upon Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, learned counsel prays
for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 and the orders
dated 23.07.2011 and 08.11.2011 rejecting the appellant’s claim for
regularisation.
Submissions on behalf of appellants/ Managing Director M.P. State
Agriculture Marketing Board:
22. Learned counsel for the appellants/ Managing Director submits
that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying upon the judgments
passed in Kamlesh Kumar Gupta and Satya Kumar Jain, as the said
cases pertained to the grant of retrospective seniority, whereas the
present case relates to promotion from the post of L.D.C. to the post of
Secretary. It is contended that the post of L.D.C. belongs to the Mandi
Cadre, whereas the post of Secretary belongs to the Mandi Board Cadre,
and there is no prescribed channel of promotion from the former post to
the latter.
23. It is further submitted that the respondents-petitioners have
claimed promotion on the basis of their experience of discharging duties
on the higher post of Secretary. However, they have not produced any
order demonstrating that their claim for promotion was rejected by the
appellants. The appellants are making efforts to convene a Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering the cases of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
18 WA-2828-2024
respondents-petitioners and other similarly situated employees and have

sought necessary instructions from the State Government. Learned
counsel further submits that, in the absence of the requisite approval
from the State Government and a prescribed promotion policy, the claim
of the respondent-petitioner is premature. It is, therefore, contended that
the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued the impugned
direction by relying upon judgments concerning a different subject
matter. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for setting aside the
respective impugned orders and allowing the writ appeals.
24. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
25. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors reported
in (2006) 4 SCC 1, it has held that irregular appointment can be
regularised, but not illegal appointment. Recently, the Apex Court has
considered all the earlier judgments in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of
India reported in [(2026) 4 SCC 1] has considered the plights of these
daily rated employees and directed regularisation in the services.
Relevant paragraphs are quoted as under:-

“22. The pervasive misuse of
temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers' rights and job security.
In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits,
job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
19 WA-2828-2024
labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not
only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental
operations.
..............................
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation.
While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to
address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a
mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
a. Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often
labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,”
even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
b. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
20 WA-2828-2024
duration of their service.
c. Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and
their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
d. Using outsourcing as a shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.

e. Denial of Basic Rights and
Benefits: Temporary employees are
often denied fundamental benefits such
as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when
their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their
families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances."
26. Admittedly, the case of the writ petitioners is similar to the
case of Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava, but the benefits given to him
have been denied to the writ petitioners solely on the ground that he
approached the Labour Court, and these writ petitioners directly
approached the High Court after considerably period of time. The main
problem of the appellant board is how the Award passed by the Labour
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
21 WA-2828-2024
Court can be applied as Judgment-in-rem to grant similar benefits to the

similarly placed employees. As a test case, if one employee approaches
the lowest Court and gets the relief and the same is upheld up to the
Apex Court, then management / employer should not expect from each
employees to approach the Court to get the same relief. This would
amount to burdening the Court with a bundle of cases of similar nature
and also would cause financial burden to the employees. This type of
approach and mentality of the employer should be deprecated.
27. In service jurisprudence, the benefits of pay revision or up-
gradation, pay scale, promotion, allowances and leaves, etc once decided
in one set of employees should be extended to all similarly placed
employees. The Supreme Court has consistently held that once a
question of law or a service principle has attained finality regarding one
set of employees, the benefit should automatically be extended to all
other similarly situated employees without forcing each individual to
knock on the doors of the court. In the case of State of Karnataka v. C.
Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 it has been held as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by
this Court from time to time postulates
that all persons similarly situated should
be treated similarly. Only because one
person has approached the court that
would not mean that persons similarly
situated should be treated differently. It
is furthermore well settled that the
question of seniority should be governed
by the rules. It may be true that this
Court took notice of the subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
22 WA-2828-2024
events, namely, that in the meantime she
had also been promoted as Assistant
Commissioner which was a Category I
post but the direction to create a
supernumerary post to adjust her must be
held to have been issued only with a
view to accommodate her therein as
otherwise she might have been reverted
and not for the purpose of conferring a
benefit to which she was not otherwise
entitled to."

28. Likewise, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, the
Supreme Court synthesised the law on this issue and laid down
that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all
other identically situated employees should be treated alike, and not
differently merely because they did not approach the court earlier. Para
22 is reproduced below:-
22. The legal principles which emerge
from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments, cited both by the appellants
as well as the respondents, can be
summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given
relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike
by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle
needs to be applied in service matters
more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from
time to time postulates that all similarly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
23 WA-2828-2024
situated persons should be treated
similarly. Therefore, the normal rule
would be that merely because other
similarly situated persons did not
approach the Court earlier, they are not
to be treated differently.

22.2. However, this principle is
subject to well-recognised exceptions in
the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their
cases and acquiesced into the same and
woke up after long delay only because of
the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit
of the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to
them. They would be treated as fence-
sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground
to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may
not apply in those cases where the
judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give
benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the court or
not. With such a pronouncement the
obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all
similarly situated persons. Such a
situation can occur when the subject-
matter of the decision touches upon the
policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma
v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other
hand, if the judgment of the court was in
personam holding that benefit of the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
24 WA-2828-2024
judgment shall accrue to the parties
before the court and such an intention is
stated expressly in the judgment or it can
be impliedly found out from the tenor
and language of the judgment, those who
want to get the benefit of the said
judgment extended to them shall have to
satisfy that their petition does not suffer
from either laches and delays or
acquiescence."

29. State instrumentalities, statutory boards, and public
authorities are governed by constitutional morality as Model Employers.
Forcing similarly placed employees to litigate identical issues runs
contrary to this duty: In Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise,
(1975) 4 SCC 714, the Supreme Court observed that when a citizen
aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the
court and obtained a declaration of law, the department should accept
that decision and extend the same benefit to all other identically situated
employees rather than driving each of them to file independent claims.
Para 12 is as under:-
12. In the cases before us, the fundamental rights
alleged to be violated could only be the general
ones embraced by Article 16(1) of the Constitution
which reads:
“There shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.”
30. Where a petitioner alleges that he has been denied equality of
opportunity for service, during the course of his employment as a
government servant, it is incumbent upon him to disclose not only the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86110
25 WA-2828-2024
Rule said to be infringed but also how this opportunity was unjustifiably

denied on each particular occasion. The equality of opportunity in a
matter relating to employment implies equal treatment to persons
similarly situated or in the same category as the petitioner. It postulates
equality of conditions under which a number of persons belonging to the
same category compete for the same opportunities and a just and
impartial application of uniform and legally valid standards in deciding
upon competing claims. It does not exclude justifiable discrimination.
31. In view of the above, all the Writ Appeals filed by the Madhya
Pradesh Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board), Bhopal through
the Managing Director are hereby dismissed, and the common order
passed by the Writ Court is hereby upheld.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
RM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-10-2026
15:00:16