Madhya Pradesh High CourtPehalwan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 20171     W.P.1517/2017

(Pehaluran Singh and another Vs. State of M.P.)
16.03.2017
      Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
      Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondents No.1 and 2/State.Taking into account the nature of the order which
this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue
notice to the respondent no.3.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is heard finally.In this writ petition underArticle 226of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners inter-alia seeks a
direction to the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No.1 Pehalwan Singh is working as Truck Driver
since 1992, petitioner No.2 Bhagwan Das is working as
Pump Attender with effect from 01.01.1994 and petitioner
No.3 Keshav Prajapati is working as helper since 1994 in
the   office   of   respondent    No.3   Nagar    Parishad,
Khaniadhana, District Shivpuri. However, till today, the
services of the petitioners have not been regularized. It is
further submitted that services of the similarly situated
employees have been regularized. However, no action in
the case of the petitioners is being taken. It is further
submitted that the writ petition be disposed with a
direction to convene the meeting of President-in-Council
within the specified time and to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization on the post in question and
thereafter the respondents no.2 and 3 be directed to
convene the meeting of District Selection Committee and2       W.P.1517/2017to consider the case for regularization.On the other hand learned Dy. Advocate General
       submits that the action with regard to claim of the
       petitioner for regularization shall be taken in accordance
       with law.In view of the submissions made by the learned
       counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the
       writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the
       respondent no.3 shall convene the meeting of President-
       in-Council within a period of six weeks from the date of
       receipt of certified copy of this order passed today, in
       which the case of the petitioner for regularization shall be
       considered depending upon the recommendations made
       by the President-in-Council the meeting of the District
       Selection Committee shall be convened within a further
       period of six weeks therefrom in which the claim of the
       petitioners for regularization shall be considered by a
       speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not
       expressed any opinion with regard to entitlement of the
       petitioner to claim regularization.With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is
       disposed of.(S.A. Dharmadhikari)
mani                                              Judge