Article 14 & Service Law | Daily Rated Employees Entitled to Regularization Under State Policy; MP HC Mandates Reasoned Decision Within 45 Days

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to consider a daily rated employee's representation for regularization under its 2016 policy, emphasizing that a reasoned decision must be communicated within 45 days. This order underscores the obligation of authorities to apply government schemes fairly and transparently, while also providing cogent reasons if benefits are denied.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Shoaib Qureshi, a daily rated employee in the office of respondent No. 4 since 2010, sought regularization under the Madhya Pradesh State Government's Scheme dated 07.10.2016. The scheme aimed to confer permanent status on eligible daily rated employees. Despite filing a representation, the petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to consider his claim, prompting him to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Facts

• The petitioner has been working as a daily rated employee since 2010.
• The State Government issued a circular on 07.10.2016 (Annexure-P/7) providing for regularization of daily rated employees as skilled employees.
• The petitioner sought the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 from 01.09.2016, along with increments, seniority, and consequential benefits.
• The respondents did not decide the petitioner's representation, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Procedural History

• 2010: Petitioner commenced work as a daily rated employee.
• 07.10.2016: State Government issued the regularization scheme.
• Date not specified: Petitioner filed a representation seeking regularization under the scheme.
• Date not specified: Representation remained undecided, prompting the writ petition.
• 06.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 16086 of 2026 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant regularization under the scheme dated 07.10.2016 and classify him as a skilled employee.
2. Payment of the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 from 01.09.2016, including increments, seniority, and consequential benefits with arrears.
3. Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the respondents were obligated to consider the petitioner's representation under the State Government's regularization scheme dated 07.10.2016 and, if so, whether they could deny the benefits without assigning cogent reasons.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that:

• He had been working as a daily rated employee since 2010 and was entitled to regularization under the scheme dated 07.10.2016.
• The respondents failed to consider his representation, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the State's own policy.

For the Respondents/State

The respondents did not present specific counter-arguments in the judgment, but the Court noted that the merits of the petitioner's entitlement were not commented upon.

The Court's Analysis

The Court refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the petitioner's entitlement, observing that the State Government's scheme dated 07.10.2016 already provided for regularization of daily rated employees. The Court emphasized the following principles:

1. Policy Application: The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation in light of the scheme dated 07.10.2016, without prejudice to his entitlement.
2. Natural Justice: The Court underscored the importance of a reasoned decision, stating that if the respondents chose to deny the benefits, they must assign cogent reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner.
3. Timely Disposal: The respondents were directed to decide the representation within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

"Since there is already a policy of State Government dated 07.10.2016 to extend the benefit of permanent status of such employees, therefore the respondents are directed to dwell upon the entitlement of the petitioner by taking into consideration the aforesaid policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the State Government."

"If for any reason the respondents deems it fit in not extending the benefit to the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner in his representation, the respondents/competent authority shall be under obligation to assign cogent reasons for dis-satisfaction/dis-entitlement and communicate the same to the petitioner, within the aforesaid period."

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The petitioner must file a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 within 14 days from the date of the judgment.
2. The respondents must consider and decide the representation within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, taking into account the scheme dated 07.10.2016.
3. If the respondents deny the benefits, they must assign cogent reasons and communicate the decision to the petitioner within the stipulated period.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Mandatory Consideration of Government Schemes

• Authorities are bound to consider representations under government schemes and cannot ignore them without valid reasons.
• Practitioners should emphasize the applicability of schemes and demand reasoned decisions if benefits are denied.

Natural Justice in Administrative Decisions

• The judgment reinforces that administrative decisions must comply with principles of natural justice, including the right to a reasoned order.
• If a scheme or policy exists, authorities must apply it uniformly and provide cogent reasons for any denial, failing which judicial intervention may follow.

Timelines for Disposal

• Courts may impose strict timelines for disposal of representations, as seen in this case (45 days).
• Practitioners can cite this judgment to seek expeditious disposal of pending representations under similar schemes.