logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 340 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 9366 Of 2003
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Parties : V.K. Sharma Versus The State Of M.P. & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Harish Agnihotri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Girish Prakash Kekre, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 01-10-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MPHC-JBP 78731,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961
- Rule 12 (4) of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961

2. Catch Words:
- seniority
- adhoc employee
- promotion
- feeder cadre
- relaxation of rules
- ex‑parte
- regularisation
- consequential benefits

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought seniority from his initial adhoc appointment on 08/03/1978 under Article 226. The State argued that seniority should count from his regularisation on 31/08/1989. The Court examined Rule 12(4)(b) of the MP Civil Services Rules, which allows seniority for uninterrupted adhoc service that later gets regularised. Finding no interruption or irregularity, the Court held the petitioner entitled to seniority from 08/03/1978. The petitioner also claimed promotion to Labour Welfare Officer from 12/07/1994, arguing the respondent’s promotion was unlawful as the post was not a feeder cadre. The Court directed the respondents to promote the petitioner from that date and, if only one vacancy existed, to revert the respondent to his earlier post without any recovery. The writ petition was consequently allowed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India making a prayer to grant him seniority on the post of Labour Welfare Inspector from the date of his appointment as adhoc employee from 08/03/1978.

2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner ought to have been promoted on the post of Labour Welfare Officer from 12/07/1994 the date from which respondent No.3 Mahesh Kumar Dubey was promoted. It is submitted that feeder cadre post of Labour Welfare Officer is Labour Welfare Inspector and not U.D.C. Respondent No.3 was working as U.D.C. and he could not have been promoted on said post. Petitioner ought to have given promotion with all consequential benefits.

3. Government Advocate appearing for State relied upon Para-7 of reply and submitted that there was one post of Labour Welfare Officer, which fell vacant in Department. Respondent No.3 was appointed on adhoc basis as Labour Welfare Officer as a special case. Appointment of respondent No.3 was made after relaxation of provisions under the Rules and approval of Cabinet. State Government is competent to relax the Rules with approval of Cabinet. It is also submitted that services of petitioner were regularized on 31/08/1989 and it was specifically mentioned that seniority will be counted from the date when he was regularized. Petitioner will not be entitled for seniority from 08/03/1978.

4. Heard counsel for parties.

5. Notice was served upon respondent No.3 on 02/03/2026. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No.3 is proceeded ex-parte.

6. Case of petitioner will be governed by M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961. Rule 12 (4) of said Rules of 1961 is quoted as under :-

          "(4) Seniority of Adhoc employees.- (a) A person appointed on adhoc basis shall not get any seniority till the regularisation of his services.

          (b) If a person is appointed on adhoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for seniority."

7. On going through aforesaid Rule it is found that petitioner has been appointed on adhoc basis. No ground is taken that petitioner was backdoor entrants and was not recruited following the Rules. Neither there is any pleading that there was interruption in continuation of petitioner as adhoc Welfare Inspector. In view of same, by virtue of Rule 12(4)(b) of Rules of 1961 petitioner is entitled for seniority from date of his initial appointment when he was officiating. Writ Petition is allowed in respect of grant of seniority to petitioner from date of initial appointment on adhoc basis i.e. 08/03/1978.

8. Petitioner has further made a prayer for granting him promotion from 12/07/1994 when respondent No.3 was promoted. Since petitioner was holding the post of Labour Welfare Inspector and said post is the feeder cadre, therefore, petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion on the post of Labour Welfare Officer. Respondents / Competent Authority had committed an error of law in granting promotion to respondent No.3 giving relaxation. Said relaxation could not have been granted since petitioner who was holding the post of Labour Welfare Inspector was available for consideration to be promoted on the post of Labour Welfare Officer. Respondent No.3 was not holding the post of Labour Welfare Inspector and he could not have been given relaxation by authorities for being promoted to Labour Welfare Officer since post of U.D.C. was not a feeder cadre. Petitioner was holding the post and he could have been considered for the same.

9. In view of same, respondents are directed to promote petitioner on the post of Labour Welfare Officer from 12/07/1994. If only one post is available, then respondent No.3 shall be reverted to the earlier post. It is made clear that no recovery shall be made from respondent No.3 for the period he had worked on said post. Petitioner is entitled for getting all consequential benefits.

10. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed off.
 
  CDJLawJournal