MP High Court Quashes Termination Of Employee After 28 Years Of Service, Orders State To Regularise Him On Direct Recruitment Post

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the termination of an employee whose services were cancelled after nearly 28 years on the ground that his initial appointment to the post of Daftari was irregular, observing that the State, instead of removing him after such a long period of service, ought to have regularised him against a post meant for direct recruitment. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 283]

Justice Deepak Khot held that there was no allegation that the employee had secured the appointment by fraud or misrepresentation and directed the authorities to regularise his services on an appropriate direct recruitment post, even if it carried a lower pay scale.

The bench observed:

"it is clear that the State being a welfare State cannot be allowed to remove a person who spent a respectable time in rendering service in the respondent-department. The State authority instead of removing the petitioner from service could have taken the stand of regularizing the appointment of the petitioner after 28 years by regularizing his services on the post which was of the direct recruitment and accordingly adjusted his salary, emoluments received by him on the higher post of promotion. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents/State has not acted in accordance with law and the action of the respondents is not justified qua the facts and circumstances of the present case". 

Per the facts of the case, the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange and in 1985 got posted to the vacant seat of Daftary under the Town and Country Planning Department (respondent no 3). The appointment was based on daily wages, and he was appointed on an ad hoc basis for 6 months till regular appointment is made to the post. 

His service kept extending through orders issued from 1987 to 1990, and he was granted the benefit of special pay. Thereafter, a government notification was passed in 1990 wherein the petitioner, along with other employees, was regularised. He was continuously included in the gradation list. 

After a recommendation from the Departmental Promotional Committee, the petitioner was granted the benefit of Second Time Pay Scale with effect from January 27, 2010 and thereafter in 2015, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade III.

The petitioner claimed that after serving the department for 30 years, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in 2015 alleging that his initial appointment as Draftary was irregular, as it was a promotional post and proposed termination of his service. 

The petitioner, during the pendency of this matter, filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with direction to the department to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a reasoned order. 

The department, however, cancelled the petitioner's regularisation in both matters. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was initially appointed on daily wages and thereafter given an appointment on an ad-hoc basis. He also claimed to have been given the benefit of revisions to pay rules and was promoted to Assistant Grade III. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued to him and other employees in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench of this High Court in WP 198/1999. 

The petitioner had also filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to file a representation against the show cause notice, but his services were ultimately terminated. 

The counsel for the respondents claimed that the authorities followed the order of the Divisional Bench of this High Court, and the petitioner was served a show cause notice. The respondents claimed that the petitioner's appointment was irregular and, thus, his services were terminated. 

The counsel for the respondent relied on the M.P. Nagar Evam Gramin Niyojan (Chaturth Shreni) Seva Bharti Niyam 1978, which governs the appointment of Daftary. Under the Schedule to the 1978 Rules, the said post is promotional and therefore, no direct appointment could have been granted to the petition. 

The counsel argued that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner and other employees was contrary to the 1987 Rules. 

The court, examining the notices from appointing the petitioner to his promotion, noted that the respondents at no point in time found his appointment to be irregular and extended his service benefits time. It is only by the order of this court that the respondents scrutinised the employment of the petitioner. 

The bench emphasized that the department ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for revocation as Daftary, considering his long "respectable period of service". The bench further noted; 

"From perusal of the record as well as return, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner has ever misrepresented and obtained the appointment by fraud. It is nowhere the case that the appointing authority has ever been subjected to any departmental enquiry for granting the petitioner an appointment on the post which was a promotional post". 

The court relied on the Supreme Court case of the State of Karnataka v Uma Devi, which discusses the power of the State to consider the service rendered by the employees, including adhoc bases, on a daily wage basis, irrespective of the regularity of their initial entry into the service. 

The court noted that the State, after 28 years, should have taken the stand of regularising the petitioner's appointment. Thus, the bench held that the order of October 18, 2017, terminating the service of the petitioner was not sustainable.

The bench quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner's appointment. 

Case Title: Kalyan Singh Pawar v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-20363-2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 283

For Petitioner: Advocate Praveen Dubey 

For State: Advocate Shraddha Tiwari 

Click here to read/download the Order