Karodi Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
1 WP-3053-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3053 of 2018
KARODI LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-

"7.1 That, impugned termination / removal order
Annexure P-1 dated 25.10.2017 and Annexure P-3
dated 08.01.2018 may kindly be set - aside.
7.2 That respondent further may kindly be directed to
provide all consequential benefit which is flouted away
by passing the impugned removal / termination order
Annexure P-1 dated 25.10.2017.
7.3 That, any other relief doing justice into the matter
including cost of petition advocate fee etc. may kindly
be awarded to the petitioner.
7.4 that, in view of clause- 10 of annexure P-11 related
to service condition of daily wager employee wherein in
view of clause- 10 one cannot be removed from service
on ground of pendency of criminal case therefore
impuned order Annexure P-1 dated 25.10.2017
absolutely being contrary to the clause - 10 of the said
rule is liable to be set-aside."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar on 16.06.1981 in the OBC category and
had continuously worked without any break at Government Sanjay Nikunj,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
2 WP-3053-2018
Dehalwada, Tehsil Gyaraspur, District Vidisha. It is submitted that

petitioner's wages for the period from January 2009 to December 2014 were
not paid despite preparation of a Panchnama and repeated representations,
and that he was placed at Serial No.1 in the seniority list of Nursery Workers.
The petitioner had approached this Court seeking regularization in W.P.
No.7765/2014, which was disposed of on 12.12.2015, followed by Contempt
Petition No.645/2016, and thereafter W.P. No.22477/2017 was
filed challenging rejection of his regularization claim, which is pending. It is
further submitted that owing to the petitioner’s continued pursuit of these
proceedings and complaints regarding non-payment of wages, the
respondents maliciously procured registration of a false criminal case against
him, despite his complaints to the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha and the
local MLA. The impugned termination order dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure
P/1) was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or holding a
departmental enquiry and solely on the basis of the pendency of the criminal
case, which had not resulted in conviction, thereby violating the principles of
natural justice. Reliance has been placed on Rule 10 of the M.P. Dainik
Vetan Bhogi Karmachari (Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013 (Annexure P/11) to
contend that mere pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground for
removal. He also relied upon his complaints and supporting records,
including Annexures P/12 to P/15, to substantiate the allegation of
harassment and victimisation. Accordingly, the termination order
dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) and consequential show-cause notice
dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P/3) are arbitrary, illegal and liable to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
3 WP-3053-2018
quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed

by the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
another reported AIR 1996 SC 3300, Commandant 20 BN. ITB Police Vs.
Sanjay Binjola reported in 2001 SAR (Criminal) 492 and Dhan Singh
Thakur Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2003 (I) MPJR SN 11.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
petition and submits that the petitioner was engaged from time to time as a
daily-wage labourer and there was no sanctioned post of Chowkidar. It is
further submitted that the petitioner had unauthorizedly occupied a
Government quarter, pursuant to which the SDO, in exercise of powers
under Section 5 of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974,
passed an eviction order dated 09.01.2013. It is submitted that when the
authorities went to execute the eviction order, the petitioner misbehaved with
the Government servants, resulting in registration of an FIR under Sections
353, 332, 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of the SC/ST Act, and
his arrest on 18.10.2017. Consequently, his daily-wage engagement was
stopped by order dated 25.10.2017, which is stated to be legal and proper.
Learned counsel further submits that the Government quarter was ultimately
vacated from the petitioner’s possession on 27.04.2018 in execution of the
aforesaid eviction order. Therefore, the show-cause notice dated 08.01.2018
(Annexure P-3) has already worked itself out and does not warrant any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
4 WP-3053-2018
petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC vide

judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act),
Vidisha in Special Case No.226/2017 and sentenced to undergo 8 days
imprisonment (already undergone) with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
imprisonment.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the petitioner was engaged
from time to time as a daily-wage labourer, as there was no sanctioned post
of Chowkidar. The petitioner had unauthorizedly occupied a Government
Quarter, leading the SDO to pass an eviction order dated 09.01.2013 under
Section 5 of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. During
execution of the eviction order, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with
Government officials, resulting in registration of an FIR under Sections 353,
332, 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of the SC/ST Act, followed
by his arrest on 18.10.2017. Consequently, his daily-wage engagement was
discontinued vide order dated 25.10.2017, which, according to the State, was
lawful. The Government Quarter was ultimately vacated from the
petitioner’s possession on 27.04.2018. The show-cause notice dated
08.01.2018 (Annexure P-3) had already served its purpose and no other
effective relief should be considered. The petitioner has also been convicted
for offence under Section 323 of IPC vide aforesaid judgment dated
25.04.2024 and sentenced to undergo 8 days imprisonment (already
undergone) with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default imprisonment.
6. The main question is whether the petitioner got a legal right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
5 WP-3053-2018
continue only because he worked as a daily-wage employee for a long time.

The question is also whether this Court should order his reinstatement under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. The record shows that the petitioner did not hold a regular
Government post. The respondents have clearly stated that he was engaged
from time to time as a daily-wage worker and that there was no sanctioned
post of Chowkidar. The petitioner has not produced any material to disprove
this. His own case shows that his claim for regularisation was pending in
separate proceedings and that no order had given him regular status.
8. Working as a daily-wage employee for a long time does not by itself
create a permanent right to hold an unsanctioned post. A daily-wage
employee cannot claim continuation as a matter of right only because he has
worked for many years. Under Article 226, the Court cannot create a post or
order continuation of work beyond the sanctioned posts.
9. The petitioner's reliance on Clause 10 of the M.P. Dainik Vetan
Bhogi Karmachari (Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013 does not help him. This
provision may protect a daily-wage employee from being removed only
because a criminal case is pending. However, it does not give a permanent or
absolute right to continue working forever, regardless of whether a
sanctioned post is available or other facts relating to the engagement.
10. The nature of the order must also be considered. The order dated
25.10.2017 stopped the petitioner's daily-wage work. He was not removed
from a regular Government post after a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore,
the rules relating to a major punishment against a regular Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
6 WP-3053-2018
employee cannot be applied in the same way to a person engaged only as a

daily-wage worker from time to time.
11. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that a departmental enquiry
was compulsory cannot be accepted in this case. A person who does not have
a regular appointment cannot claim the same procedure that applies to
dismissal or removal from a regular Government post merely because he
worked for a long time.
12. In any event, the later result of the criminal case is important. The
case pending when the petitioner's work was stopped did not end in his
acquittal. Instead, he was convicted by the competent criminal Court under
Section 323 of the IPC. This conviction is not being used to justify the order
dated 25.10.2017 from the beginning. However, it is a relevant fact while
deciding whether this Court should now use its discretionary and equitable
powers to restore the petitioner's daily-wage work.
13. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 , the
Supreme Court held that a temporary or ad hoc employee does not acquire an
indefeasible right to continue in service merely because he has worked for
some time. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1, the Constitution Bench held that temporary, casual and daily-wage
employees have no fundamental or enforceable right to regularisation or
continuation contrary to the constitutional scheme of public employment.
The Supreme Court reiterated this principle in State of Rajasthan v. Daya
Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, holding that long service by itself does not confer a
right to regularisation, permanency or continuation where the appointment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
7 WP-3053-2018
was not against a sanctioned post and was not made in accordance with the

applicable rules.
14. The Full Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State
of M.P., 2004 (4) MPLJ 555, considered Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It held that when a person's
conduct leads to conviction in a criminal case, the disciplinary authority may
consider the facts of the case and pass an appropriate order. The Full Bench
upheld dismissal in a corruption case and held that the punishment was not
excessive.
15. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985
SC 1416, also explained Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. Under this
provision, a regular departmental enquiry is not required when punishment is
based on conduct that has led to conviction in a criminal case. The principle
was further explained in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
(Administration) v. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377, where the Supreme
Court held that, after conviction, the competent authority may take action on
the basis of the conduct leading to conviction without waiting for the
criminal appeal to attain finality.
16. The Supreme Court has also consistently held that a daily-wage or
temporary employee cannot claim reinstatement as an automatic
consequence of discontinuance. In State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla,
(1991) 1 SCC 691, it was held that a temporary employee has no right to
hold the post and that discontinuance in accordance with the terms of
engagement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
8 WP-3053-2018
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, (2006) 9

SCC 434, the Court held that completion of 240 days of work does not
confer a right to regularisation or permanent employment. Likewise, in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , the Supreme
Court held that reinstatement is not automatic even where termination is
found procedurally defective, particularly in the case of a daily-wage
employee who has no right to regular appointment.
17. It is true that conviction does not always require dismissal or
removal. The authority must consider the facts of the case and the nature of
the offence. However, this case is not about dismissal from a regular post.
The petitioner was a daily-wage worker, there was no sanctioned post of
Chowkidar, and he did not have a regular appointment. Therefore, this Court
is not willing to order his reinstatement on equitable grounds.
18. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, namely Pawan Kumar
(supra) and Dhan Singh Thakur (supra), do not change the result. Those
cases must be understood in light of their own facts and the laws involved.
They do not say that a daily-wage employee without a sanctioned post gets
an absolute right to continue only because he has worked for a long time.
19. The petitioner has also failed to prove his allegation of mala fides
and victimisation. Filing representations or cases for regularisation does not
by itself prove that the authorities acted with bad intention. The petitioner's
claim that the criminal case was falsely started at the request of the
respondents is not supported by any decision in his favour. More
importantly, the criminal case later ended in his conviction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26598
9 WP-3053-2018
20. It is also important that the Government quarter involved in the

eviction proceedings was finally vacated by the petitioner on 27.04.2018.
Therefore, the later notice dated 08.01.2018 no longer has any separate
effect.
21. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court normally does not
order reinstatement of a daily-wage employee when there is no sanctioned
post and the employee has not shown any existing legal right to continue.
The relief sought by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be granted.
22. For these reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned action. The petitioner has not proved any legal right to continue as
a daily-wage employee or any error that would justify the exercise of the
extraordinary powers of this Court.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case arising out of the incident
relied upon by the respondents. In view of the conviction, and since the
petitioner had no regular appointment or right to hold a sanctioned post, no
relief of reinstatement or continuation can be granted.
24. Any pending application (if any) shall also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:10:41 AM