Smt. Urmila Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
1 WP-6988-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6988 of 2019
SMT. URMILA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. R.P. Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1. That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15.06.2016
(Annexure P/6) passed by respondent no. 3, in the interest of
justice.
7.2 That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus direct
the respondent no. 3 to extend the benefit of regular pay scale in
the light of Circular dated 22.11.1988, in the interest of justice.
7.3 That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to make
necessary correction in NPS (National Pension System)
(Annexure P/8).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
2 WP-6988-2019
7.4 Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including

cost of litigation."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially
appointed as a “Washer woman” on daily-rated basis in February, 1982 in
the Public Works Department, Jabalpur and was subsequently granted fixed
pay under the work-charge paid fund vide order dated 10.07.1984. Under the
Government Circular dated 22.11.1988, daily-rated employees appointed
prior to 01.01.1984 and completing three years of service on or before
01.04.1987 were entitled to regular pay scale from the date of appointment.
However, the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner,
therefore, earlier filed W.P. No.1367/2015, wherein this Court directed the
respondents vide order dated 16.02.2015 to consider her representation by a
speaking order. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the
respondent rejected her claim vide order dated 15.06.2016, holding that there
was no provision under the M.P. Daily Rated Employee (Service Conditions)
Rules, 2013 for her regularization, and the contempt petition was thereafter
dismissed on 30.01.2017. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the
ground that the Circular dated 22.11.1988 continues to operate and similarly
situated employees have been granted the benefit of regular pay scale,
whereas the same has been denied to her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 15.06.2016 is arbitrary and contrary to the Circular dated 22.11.1988,
under which eligible daily-rated employees appointed prior to 01.01.1984
and having completed the requisite service were entitled to regular pay scale.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
3 WP-6988-2019
Since the petitioner was appointed in February, 1982 and was granted fixed

pay under the work-charge paid fund vide order dated 10.07.1984, she is
entitled to the benefit of the said Circular. It is further submitted that the
Circular dated 22.11.1988 was neither superseded nor amended by the
Circular dated 09.07.2013, and the petitioner's claim could not have been
rejected merely by referring to the M.P. Daily Rated Employee (Service
Conditions) Rules, 2013. Similarly situated employees have also been
granted the benefit of regular pay scale, and denial thereof to the petitioner
amounts to discrimination. It is also submitted that the petitioner's date of
appointment has wrongly been recorded in her NPS account as 17.01.2014
instead of 10.07.1984, despite her representation seeking correction. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed and the
respondents be directed to extend the benefit of regular pay scale in terms of
the Circular dated 22.11.1988 and correct the petitioner's NPS record
accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not
entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale in terms of the Circular dated
22.11.1988. It is submitted that the petitioner's claim is governed by the M.P.
Daily Rated Employee (Service Conditions) Rules, 2013, and the Circular
dated 22.11.1988 cannot be relied upon contrary to the prevailing statutory
rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted fixed pay under
the work-charge paid fund and her subsequent service conditions are
governed by the applicable rules. The benefit of regular pay scale cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
4 WP-6988-2019
claimed merely on the basis of initial engagement as a daily-rated employee.

As regards the NPS record, learned counsel submits that any discrepancy in
the date of appointment is a matter of record and may be examined by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules. It is, therefore,
prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-
P/4), it is found that the petitioner's claim for grant of regular pay scale has
been rejected primarily on the ground that her case is governed by the M.P.
Daily Rated Employee (Service Conditions) Rules, 2013. However, it is not
in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily-rated
employee in February, 1982 and was subsequently granted fixed pay under
the work-charge paid fund vide order dated 10.07.1984. The petitioner has
relied upon the Circular dated 22.11.1988, which provides for grant of
regular pay scale to eligible daily-rated employees appointed prior to
01.01.1984 upon completion of the requisite period of service. It is also her
case that similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of
regular pay scale. The respondents have not disputed the petitioner's
continuous service or the applicability of the aforesaid Circular to similarly
situated employees.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases of Jaggu Vs. Union of India
and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Pawan Kumar and
others Vs. Union of India and others in SLP (C) No. 29214/2019, has laid
down the principles in regard to regularization of daily wagers who have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
5 WP-6988-2019
worked continuously for a long period of time, which are reproduced

hereunder:-
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who
were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of
cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose,
effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden
of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they
are meant to embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
considering the fact that the petitioner has been working from a long time
and has been paid monthly salary at a fixed rate, the case of the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
6 WP-6988-2019
deserves reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.6.2016
(annexure P/4) is hereby quashed, the matter is again remitted back to the
respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization,
considering the policy of the Government and strictly in the light of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
as well as the fact that the petitioner has been continuously working in the
respondent-department and has been paid fixed remuneration from the
contingency head, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's
claim requires reconsideration by the competent authority.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2016 is hereby set
aside. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation, along with a
certified copy of this order, before the competent respondent-authority within
a period of fifteen days from today. The competent authority shall consider
and decide the said representation, in accordance with law and the applicable
policy/circular, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the petitioner's claim, and the competent authority shall
consider the same in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66175
7 WP-6988-2019
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM