Authorities must decide contractual employees’ regularization representations under applicable rules and government circulars.

The petitioners were appointed on contract as Accountants and Accountant-cum-Clerks under the M.P. Jan Abhiyan Parishad.

They relied on a 5 February 2018 State circular and Rule 6 of the M.P. Jan Abhiyan Parishad (Condition of Recruitment and Service) Rules, 2018, which they said entitled them to regularisation after three years’ service.

Their services were discontinued by an order dated 16 April 2019.

During an earlier writ petition, they were reinstated on 26 August 2021, but without continuity of service; they then withdrew that petition.

After a further State circular dated 22 July 2023, the petitioners submitted a representation on 8 October 2025 seeking benefits, but it had not been decided.

They sought regularisation, continuity and consequential benefits.

The State submitted that contractual employees had no automatic right to regularisation, but that the petitioners’ claims would be considered under the 2023 circular.

Whether the petitioners’ claims for regularisation and related service benefits should be determined in this writ petition or considered by the respondent authority under the applicable Rules and circulars.

Whether the respondent authority should be directed to decide the petitioners’ representation concerning those benefits.

The Court referred to the M.P. Jan Abhiyan Parishad (Condition of Recruitment and Service) Rules, 2018, particularly Rule 6, which the petitioners relied on as providing for regularisation after three years’ service.

It also considered the State circulars dated 5 February 2018 and 22 July 2023.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not determine the substantive legal entitlement to regularisation; it directed the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with the applicable Rules, circulars and law.

The petitioners alleged that they had completed the qualifying service and were unfairly denied regularisation and continuity after reinstatement.

The State disputed any automatic right to regularisation but agreed that their eligibility for benefits under the 2023 circular could be considered.

Rather than adjudicating the disputed entitlement or the consequences of the service interruption, the Court considered it appropriate for the respondent authority to assess the petitioners’ claims under the 2018 Rules and relevant circulars.

It directed the petitioners to submit a fresh, detailed representation with supporting documents within 15 days, and respondent No. 2 to decide it in accordance with law within three months of its submission.