Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Equality in Employment Regularization

Court Quashes Discriminatory Orders, Ensures Equal Benefits for Senior Employee

In a landmark judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the principles of equality and non-discrimination have been reinforced in service law and administrative actions. The court, presided over by Justice Shri Deepak Khot, quashed an order that deprived petitioner Shyama Verma of regularization benefits, directing that she be accorded the same benefits as her juniors, respondents in the case. The decision underscores the constitutional mandates of Articles 14, 16, and 21, advocating for fairness, equality, and reasonableness in administrative decisions.

The petitioner, Shyama Verma, challenged the denial of regularization benefits that were extended to her juniors, respondents No. 4 and 5, who were regularized despite being appointed after her as daily wagers. The contention was that the petitioner, appointed on April 9, 1990, was unfairly deprived of benefits while her juniors, appointed on July 24, 1991, enjoyed regularization as early as February 25, 1992.

The court observed that the conditions imposed in the petitioner’s appointment were discriminatory and violated constitutional guarantees. It highlighted the absence of reasonable justification for the denial of regularization benefits to the petitioner, despite her seniority. Justice Khot emphasized that administrative authorities must ensure equality and non-discrimination, as dictated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The judgment also scrutinized the committee decision-making process, noting that revising earlier majority decisions without valid reasons amounted to a colorable exercise of power, polluting administrative processes and contravening Article 14. The court’s decision mandates that authorities extend regularization benefits to the petitioner, ensuring parity in treatment with her juniors.

This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates in administrative decisions, reaffirming the judiciary's role in upholding citizens' rights. The court’s directive is a reminder to administrative bodies to act within the bounds of fairness and reasonableness, ensuring equal treatment for all employees.

Bottom Line:

Administrative decision must adhere to constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, ensuring equality, non-discrimination, and reasonableness in action.

Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India

Shyama Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811124