Dr Umesh Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26715
1 WP-35352-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 7 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35352 of 2026
DR UMESH SINGH SENGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 has been filed by the
petitioners, claiming following reliefs:
" i ) That, the impugned order of regularization dated
28.02.2009 passed by the Respondent no. 2 contained in
Annexure P/2 may kindly be ordered to modify granting
the benefits of regularization from the date of his initial
appointment i.e. 14.01.2009 (wrongly mentioned as
23.04.1999) and the respondents be further commanded
to extend all consequential benefits at par with other
similarly situated employee and the respondents be
further commanded to pay difference of arrears and the
same be paid alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, in
the interest of justice.
ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be
issued in the favour of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
recruitment drive for the appointment on the post of Assistant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 07-Sep-26
06:40:04 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26715
2 WP-35352-2026
Homeopathy Medical Officer was initiated in the year 1999; however, in

some of districts, appointments were granted on a contractual basis,
whereas in other districts, regular appointments were granted. The
petitioner was granted contractual appointment v i d e order dated
14.01.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner, alongwith other similarly
situated persons, were regularized on the post of Assistant Homeopathy
Medical Officer vide order dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P/2). Some of
the persons have approached this Court seeking the benefit of
regularization from the initial date. Initially, litigation was initiated by
Keerat Lal Chauhan and Ishwar Dayal Tembhre in W.A.No.24/2017 and
W.A.No.25/2017, which came to be allowed by the Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 04.05.2017, and the SLP preferred by the
State against the said order was also dismissed. He further submits that
persons similarly situated, like the petitioner, thereafter approached this
Court in W.P.No.37542/2024 (Santosh Badole vs. the State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others), W.P.No.38241/2024 (Manoj Sharma and Others
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others), and W.P.No.30625/2023
(Rajendra Singh Parihar and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others) before the Benches of this Court at Indore and Jabalpur, and
the aforesaid writ petitions were also allowed vide orders dated
27.11.2024, 04.12.2024 and 12.09.2024. Thereafter, they have also been
extended the benefit by the department. The case of the petitioner stands
squarely covered with the aforesaid orders passed by the Coordinate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 07-Sep-26
06:40:04 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26715
3 WP-35352-2026
Benches of this Court, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be

allowed on the same terms.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
opposes the present petition and submits that, once the petitioner has
been granted the benefit of regularization in the year 2009 and having
accepted the same, he cannot now be permitted to raise a grievance that
regularization should have been from the initial date of appointment.
4. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the
parties.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the record.
6. The Government Advocate for the State does not have any
document to indicate that the orders of this Court, collectively filed as
Annexure P/3 and Annexure P/5 in respect of similarly situated persons,
have been interfered by any higher forum. Looking to the fact that
persons similarly situated, as mentioned herein-above, have already been
granted the benefits, this Court has no reason to take a different view.
Accordingly, maintaining parity, the present petition is allowed.
7. The respondents are directed to take a final decision regarding
regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date of their
initial appointment i.e.14.01.1999 alongwith consequential benefits, as
have been extended to similarly situated employees who have been
extended retrospective regularization, within a period of 30 days.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 07-Sep-26
06:40:04 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26715
4 WP-35352-2026
8. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and

disposed of.
9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 07-Sep-26
06:40:04 PM