Report by Umang Kanwat

In the present case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., the Supreme Court discusses the degree to which the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s prior order can be interfered with.


The appellant, who felt wronged by an order the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench had overturned, led this appeal. The order from the learned Single Judge dated which had awarded the present appellant the advantage of regularisation.

The appellant claims that he was hired in 1980 as a Supervisor under a project of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh, on a daily rate basis. The appellant asked for the position of supervisor/timekeeper to be regularized. The applicant lacked the matriculation with mathematics requirement that was the minimal requirement for the position in question. The government eased these requirements via a circular, and the appellant requested his regularisation in the position of Supervisor/Time Keeper because he was competent for the position and had previously worked for a daily rate.

According to an order from the Chief Engineer for the Rani Avanti Bai Lodhi Sagar Project, the claim of the appellant for regularisation was denied for the following reasons: even though the appellant does not lack the necessary matriculation with mathematics credentials to be regularised, the appellant has never been appointed to a position. Furthermore, the appropriate authority never appointed him because there were no open positions at the time for regularisation.


The appellant based his claim for regularisation on the fact that individuals who were daily wagers but less senior to him were regularised in 1990 or earlier. While granting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge provided instructions for regularising the appellant as of the date his juniors were regularized.


The State Government appealed against the petitioner’s order in the current case to a Division Bench, which upheld the State Government’s appeal. The Division Bench correctly concluded that the learned Single Judge had not adhered to the legal standard established by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., as the initial appointment had to be made by the appropriate party, and the daily rated employee had to be employed in a sanctioned position. These two requirements were categorically absent in the case of the current petitioner. So, in the respondent’s opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was correct to allow the appeal.

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors
The court held that precise position in this case, the issue of regularising the services of such employees may need to be evaluated on an individual basis in this particular situation. When temporary workers or daily wage earners ll vacant sanctioned positions that need to be filled, the Union of India, the State Governments, and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise their services as a one-time measure. These individuals were irregularly appointed and have worked for at least ten years in those positions without the benet of court or tribunal orders.


According to the law established by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi, the court in the current instance determined that the appellant had no grounds for regularisation. Therefore, there is no justification for the court to intervene with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench’s decision. As a result, the appeal was ultimately denied.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *