In a hearing that stretched longer than expected and occasionally saw the bench seeking clarifications in a slightly stern tone, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13 November 2025 set aside a 2015 administrative order and directed that employee Shyama Verma be granted regularisation benefits at par with her juniors. The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that the authorities’ approach “did not stand the test of fairness” and appeared to contradict their own records.
Background
Verma’s story goes back more than three decades. She joined as a daily-rated worker on 9 April 1990, while two private respondents-cited as her juniors-began similar work on 24 July 1991. Yet, in 1992, the juniors were regularised through what the department described as a “departmental process”, while Verma’s regularisation came only in 2008, burdened with a harsh condition that denied her seniority and monetary arrears.
That condition was later struck down by the High Court in 2013, which asked the authorities to reconsider her case. A departmental committee initially recommended giving her equal benefits. But surprisingly, a second committee meeting reversed that recommendation without stating why the first one was ignored. This second report formed the basis of the 30 September 2015 order-now quashed by the Court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the State’s inconsistent stand. At one point, the judge remarked that the explanation provided “simply does not match the documents on record,” noting that the State alternated between calling the juniors regular appointees and daily wagers during the same period.
The bench noted that the 1992 appointment order for the juniors carried no reference to any earlier regular appointment, contradicting the State’s claim that they were regular employees awaiting sanction. “The bench observed, ‘If they were already appointed on regular posts in 1991, why initiate a fresh selection process in 1992? The stand is neither logical nor acceptable,’” the order stated.
Another striking point came from the Court’s scrutiny of the committee proceedings. The minutes of the second meeting, the judge noted, looked like they were drafted by a single individual and later modified to appear as the committee’s collective decision. The earlier majority decision favouring Verma wasn’t even discussed. The bench described this as a “colourable exercise of power,” suggesting an administrative attempt to deprive her of her rightful seniority.
The judgment also cited the Supreme Court’s view in Amita v. Union of India (2005), observing that Article 14 demands equal treatment of those similarly placed. Justice Khot remarked that administrative bodies must avoid discrimination, adding that “unreasonableness and favouritism pollute the administrative process.”
Decision
Finding the 2015 order legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed it in full and directed the authorities to grant Shyama Verma regularisation benefits, seniority, and related entitlements at par with the two private respondents. With that, the Court disposed of the petition, ending an administrative tussle that had stretched across multiple decades and committee rooms.
Case Title: Shyama Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5855 of 2018
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Deepak Khot
Petitioner’s Claim:
- Quash the order dated 30.09.2015
- Grant seniority and regularisation benefits equal to Respondents No. 4 & 5
Date of Order: 13 November 2025