Ramniwas Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
1 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030254172026
WRIT PETITION No. 38296 of 2026
RAMNIWAS JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
“i)That, considering the length of service rendered by the
petitioner in the respondent department on Ad-hoc basis and
enjoying the benefits at par with regular employee and in view of
the settled legal position that the person is serving in the
department since long on Adhoc basis the respondents be
commanded regularize his services and extend all consequential
services benefits at par with regular employee and pay the same
or difference of arrears, in the interest of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
2 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
ii) That, the respondents be further commanded to pay the same
alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., in the interest of justice.
iii) 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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year of
1984-85, respondent department issued an advertisement for appointment over
the post of Pharmacists and petitioner applied for the same and after participating
in the selection process, petitioner was selected and appointed as Lab Technician
on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 31.12.1985. It is further submitted that initially
appointment order was on adhoc basis but by which regular pay scale Rs.515-10-
575-15-800 and dearness allowance was granted to the petitioner and further
submitted that on completion of 12 years of service, case of the petitioner has
been recommended by Screening Committee for benefit of Kramonnati and on
completion of 20/30 years of service, the department also considered his case for
grant of benefit of time scale of pay and granted the benefit of first and second
time scale of pay vide order dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure P-2) and as per
aforesaid, proper fixation order was also issued. Vide order dated 02.03.2025,
th
benefit of 4 time scale of pay was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2023.
The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 30.11.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on
a regular pay scale and all the benefits have already been extended to the
petitioner but till going to attain the age of superannuation, respondent failed to
regular his services. Respondent No. 5 has also forwarded the case of the
petitioner vide letter dated 12.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) and requested for passing
appropriate order for regularization/confirmation so that petitioner may get the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
3 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
benefit of seniority. Respondents thereafter have not the taken any action,
therefore, the petitioner filed present writ petition before this Court.
2.1 It is further submitted that once the petitioner was permitted to retire on
completion of age of superannuation i.e. 30.11.2026, the respondents cannot
deprive him of the fruits of regularization. Learned counsel for petitioner has
relied upon the order dated 28.4.2025 passed in W.P. No.26158/2022 [Sangeeta
Saxena v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others].
3. Per contra , learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is submitted
that proposal for regularization of his contractual service period was initially
forwarded to the higher authority and despite submission of the proposal and
repeated inaction, no final decision has been taken by the competent authority
regarding regularization and further submitted that due to non-regularization,
further administrative action in the matter is pending. It is further submitted that
the petitioner was admittedly appointed on adhoc/temporary basis and it is settled
position of law that such appointment does not confer any vested right of
regularization. It is submitted that mere continuation in service for a long period
does not create any legal right for regularization, particularly in absence of
sanctioned post and further submitted that the petitioner claims to have been
appointed in the year 1985 and has raised the grievance regarding regularization
at the verge of superannuation which is due on 30.11.2026.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no difference in his services as
regular Lab Technician or as adhoc Lab Technician because he was performing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
4 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
the equal duties and getting the equal salary in the same pay scale and initially
earning increments also. Only technically, the adhoc services were not
regularized and due to non-regularization of adhoc services, he has been made to
suffer in the impugned manner.
6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of t he
State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 187 to contend that a person having continued on adhoc basis for
30 years should be regularized in the service and Supreme Court in the aforesaid
case has affirmed the order of the Gujarat High Court in the matter.
7. It is further the case of the petitioner that the State Government has framed
policies time and again for regularization of even daily rated employees and even
after judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State
Government has come out with the policy dated 16.05.2007 to consider the cases
of the employees who are irregularly appointed (and not illegally appointed) for
regularization. However, just to deny the benefit of pension to the petitioner, he
has not been regularized in service though he was getting regular salary in
regular pay scale and put in 39 years of service.
8. It is settled in law that only an irregular appointment can be regularized
and illegal appointment cannot be regularized. Petitioner was having necessary
qualification for that post and it is also not the case that petitioner has suppressed
any material fact for the purpose of appointment.
9. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment
in case of Uma Devi (supra) has held that regularization cannot be claimed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
5 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
an employee as a matter of right. However, as per Para-53 of the said judgment, a
onetime exercise was directed to be carried out in cases of those employees who
had been irregular appointees and not illegal appointees and had completed more
than 10 years of service. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held as under:-
34. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies [(2004) 7 SCC 112 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 918 ] a three-Judge Bench made a survey of the
authorities and held that when appointments were made in
contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules
framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the
appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State.
The State could not invoke its power under Article 162 of the
Constitution to regularise such appointments. This Court also held
that regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or any body
or authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed
thereunder. Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an
employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that
the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would
not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation.
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N.
Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N.
Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR
937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without
the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court
in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked
for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
6 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned
posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees
or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in
motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme.
10. From a perusal of para-34, as quoted above, it is evident that when
appointments are made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and
by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot
be regularized by the State. Even in para-53, the Supreme Court has held that
duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned posts can be considered for
regularization.
11. As per the M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, his services
were required to be regularized from the date of initial appointment, i.e.,
19.03.1985, to grant him retiral benefits. Non-regularization of his services is
illegal and once he was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation,
the respondents cannot deny him the benefits flowing from regularization.
12. It is not in dispute between the parties that petitioner was appointed on an
adhoc basis on 31.12.1985. He continued in the same status and going to attain
the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2026. However, the petitioner was granted
a regular pay scale of Rs.515-10-575-15-800 as per appointment order dated
31.12.1985. Once petitioner was granted a regular pay scale, he effectively
rendered his services as a regular employee. The petitioner has served in the
respondent department for a period of 35 years. An identical petition, i.e., W.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
7 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
No. 26158/2022, has already been decided vide order dated 28.04.2025 in
Sangeeta Saxena (supra) , the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference and convenience:-
10 . The Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat & others
Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel in SLP(C) No.1109/2022 , while
dealing with somewhat similar situation, has held as under:
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the
services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and
thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by
the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to
pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be
permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take
the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to
contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years
continues service shall not be eligible for pension is
nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as
such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present
case, the High Court has not committed any error in
directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the
respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30
years service."
11. Thus, the petitioner stands on exactly similar footing as was the
respondent before the Apex Court and there is no reason for denying
the benefit of pension to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid
judgment of the Apex Court.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in following terms:
i- The respondents are directed to extend the
benefit of pension to the petitioner by treating his
adhoc service as regular and pensionable w.e.f.
31.12.1985;
ii. The respondents are further directed to
extend all the benefits which have been given to a
regular employee w.e.f. 31.12.1985;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33539
8 WP. No. 38296 of 2026
iii. The respondents are further directed to treat
the services of petitioner as regular services w.e.f.
31.12.1985;
iv. Respondent are further directed to give all
consequential benefits to petitioner treating him as
a regular employee w.e.f. 31.12.1985;
v. The respondents are further directed to
grant all retiral benefits to petitioner, as he is
going to retire as a regular employee w.e.f.
30.11.2026 ;
vi. Respondents are further directed to continue
to pay regular pension to petitioner;
vii. Respondents are directed to comply with
aforesaid direction within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, failing the respondents would be liable to
pay interest to petitioner at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of realization till its actual
payment.
viii. Since the petitioner has unnecessarily been
harassed by the respondents, they are further
directed to pay cost/compensation of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to petitioner.
14. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of .
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM