NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

1 WP. No.649 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

ON THE 27

th

OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 649 of 2017

SMT. POORNIMA SAXENA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi – counsel for petitioner.

Shri Ravindra Dixit – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed

seeking the following relief (s):

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner

may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016

Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent no.2 may

kindly be directed to be set aside. It may kindly be

further clarified that there has been no break in

service for a day even right from the joining of the

petitioner in the year 1987 till her retirement up to

2014, in that view of the matter the respondents

have no option but to regularize the services of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

2 WP. No.649 of 2017

petitioner especially in the facts and circumstances

of the case when they permitted the petitioner to

retire and aforesaid two conditions are not with her

control.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief,

which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also

kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also

awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on

27.10.1987 on the post of Registrar in Post Graduate P.G. College, Shivpuri. She

joined on 30.10.1987 and worked regularly till 1990. Thereafter, she was

transferred to Government P.G. College, Guna. It is further submitted that

petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate ground on account of death

of her husband in harness. It is further submitted that there were two conditions

mentioned in the appointment order viz.: -

(i) petitioner was required to pass Accounts

Training Examination within two years; and

(ii) petitioner was required to qualify the Public

Service Commission Examination as and when it

was held, failing which her services could be

terminated without notice.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that as per terms

and conditions mentioned in the appointment order, it is clear that accounts

training was to be acquired by petitioner, only when she was allowed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

3 WP. No.649 of 2017

department to participate in the Accounts Training. It is further submitted that

Accounts Training cannot be obtained outside the department on private basis but

it has to be obtained through department as the same is conducted by the

Department only. So far as condition No.2 is concerned, it is submitted that

P.S.C. has never advertised for the post of Registrar. It is further submitted that

petitioner applied before the Director Treasury and Accountants M.P. Bhopal for

accounts training in terms of order of appointment dated 27.10.1987 but that

application dated 23.2.1988 was not given any due weightage and on the

contrary, Director Treasury and Accounts stated that for Class-II Gazetted Post no

accounts training is provided. It was further stated in the order that only for

Class-III post the Accounts Training is provided by the Government and

Accounts Department (Annexure P/3). It is further submitted that both the

conditions mentioned in the appointment order cannot be fulfilled by petitioner

herself as petitioner was depended upon the department/PSC. As by Annexure

P/3 the respondent has already mentioned that there is no need to pass the

Accounts Training and so far as the other condition is concerned, right from

1987 till that the post of Registrar was not published by the PSC, therefore, non-

qualifying of petitioner till her retirement cannot said to be due fault on the part

of petitioner. Petitioner stood retired on 30.8.2014 and as per the Recruitment

Rules, i.e. M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, petitioner's services

were required to be regularized in order to extend the benefit of medical leave,

half -pay leave, GIS, GPF and pension etc. by calculating the services rendered

by her with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e. with effect from

27.10.1987. It is further submitted that even otherwise since both the conditions

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

4 WP. No.649 of 2017

were not under the control of the petitioner, the non-regularization of the services

of petitioner is absolutely illegal. It is further submitted that once the petitioner

was permitted to retire on completion of age of superannuation, the respondents

cannot deprive her 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.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the

prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and has supported the impugned

order. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge

and that the representation has rightly been rejected vide impugned order dated

14.12.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled both the

conditions mentioned in the appointment order; therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled to regularization of her services. It is also submitted that the post of

Registrar, on which the petitioner was appointed, is a Class-II Gazetted post and

appointment to the said post can be made only after recommendation of the

Public Service Commission in terms of the provisions contemplated under

Article 320 of the Constitution of India.

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 Registrar or as adhoc Registrar because he was performing 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

5 WP. No.649 of 2017

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 The

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 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, she has not been

regularized in service though she was getting regular salary in regular pay scale

and put in 28 years of service.

8.It is settled in law that only an irregular appointment can be regularized

and illegal appointment cannot be regularized. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner was not appointed by following compassionate appointment policy

and she 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 on

compassionate basis.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

6 WP. No.649 of 2017

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

7 WP. No.649 of 2017

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

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.Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was appointed on 27.10.1987 to

the post of Registrar in P.G. College, Shivpuri, on compassionate ground due to

the death of her husband in harness. She joined on 30.10.1987, worked regularly

till 1990, and was thereafter transferred to Government P.G. College, Guna. Her

appointment was subject to two conditions viz (i) passing the Accounts Training

Examination within two years; and (ii) qualifying the Public Service Commission

(PSC) examination as and when conducted. However, Accounts Training could

be undertaken only through the department and the Director, Treasury and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

8 WP. No.649 of 2017

Accounts, M.P., clarified that such training was not required for Class-II Gazetted

post and was provided only for Class-III posts (Annexure P/3). Further, the PSC

has never advertised the post of Registrar. Thus, both conditions were beyond

petitioner’s control, and the non-fulfilment thereof cannot be attributed to her as

fault on her part. The petitioner stood retired on 30.08.2014. As per the M.P.

Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, her services were required to be

regularized from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 27.10.1987, to grant her

retiral benefits. Non-regularization of her services is illegal and once she was

allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondents cannot

deny her the benefits flowing from regularization.

12.It is not in dispute between the parties that petitioner was appointed on an

ad hoc basis on 27.10.1987. She continued in the same status and superannuated

w.e.f. 30.08.2014. However, the petitioner was granted a regular pay scale of Rs.

1820-60-2300-75-3200-100-3300/- as per appointment order dated 27.10.1987

(Annexure P/2). Once petitioner was granted a regular pay scale, she effectively

rendered her services as a regular employee. The petitioner has served in the

respondent department for a period of 28 years. An identical petition, i.e., W.P.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

9 WP. No.649 of 2017

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 in following terms:

i- The petition is allowed and the impugned order

dated 14.12.2016 Annexure P/1 passed by the

respondent no.2 is hereby quashed;

ii. The respondents are directed to extend the

benefit of pension to the petitioner by treating her

ad hoc service as regular and pensionable w.e.f.

27.10.1987;

iii.The respondents are further directed to

extend all the benefits which has been given to

regular employee w.e.f.27.10.1987;

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

10 WP. No.649 of 2017

iv.The respondents are further directed to treat

the services of petitioner as regular services w.e.f.

27.10.1987;

v. Respondent are further directed to give all

consequential benefits to petitioner treating her as

a regular employee .w.e.f. 27.10.1987;

viThe respondents are further directed to grant

all retiral benefits to petitioner, as she retired as a

regular employee on 30.08.2014 ;

vii.Respondents are further directed to issue the

PPO and GPO and to pay arrears of pension to

petitioner from 30.8.2014;

viii.Respondents are further directed to pay

regular pension to petitioner;

ix.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 libale to pay

interest to petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of realization till its acutal payment.

x. Since the petitioner has been unnecessarily

harassed by the respondents, they are further

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3293

11 WP. No.649 of 2017

directed to pay cost/compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

to petitioner.

xi The petitioner is also directed to submit a

detailed representation seeking benefits such as

kramonnati and promotion. In turn, the respondents

are directed to consider the same and grant,

promotion and kramonnati, if the petitioner is

otherwise eligible.

14.With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.

(Anand Singh Bahrawat)

Judge

Ahmad