Advocate siddharth Shukla Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh

Reinstatement of MNREGA Technical Assistants: What Contractual Employees Must Know

Advocate Siddharth Shukla

Siddharth Shukla

Advocate | Service Law | Public Employment

Lawyer practicing in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, specializing in Constitutional, Criminal, Commercial, and Civil Law. Dedicated to providing strategic legal counsel and insightful analysis on complex legal frameworks.

In a recent ruling for contractual government employees, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) quashed the 2019 discontinuation orders affecting MNREGA Technical Assistants and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The case, Durgaprasad & Ors. v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 5807/2019 (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:3653), has clarified important principles regarding sanctioned contractual posts and natural justice .

Background of the Dispute

Technical Assistants were appointed in 2010 under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MNREGA) pursuant to a State circular creating sanctioned posts.

In March 2019, the State issued orders stating that contractual/daily wage employees under MNREGA would not be continued after 28.02.2019 unless specific approval was obtained. Based on this, petitioners were discontinued.

Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the action under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What the Court Examined

 Were the Petitioners Working on Sanctioned Posts?

This became the turning point.

The Court examined the 10.05.2010 circular and found:

  • The post of Technical Assistant was created by the State Government
  • District-wise sanctioned posts were allocated.
  • Reservation roster was applied.
  • Proper selection procedure was followed.

The Court held that the 2019 discontinuation order applied only to:

  • Employees appointed without State approval
  • Employees on non-sanctioned posts

Since the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, the impugned order did not apply to them .

Protection Under 2018 State Policy

The Court relied on the 05.06.2018 State policy which provided:

Contractual employees shall not be terminated without reasonable cause and without opportunity of hearing.

Thus, even contractual employees were entitled to procedural safeguards.

Natural Justice & Termination Principles

The State argued that termination was “simpliciter” and relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

The Court distinguished it.

It also referred to:

  • Swati Priyadarshni v. State of Madhya Pradesh
  • The classic principle from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India

The Court reiterated:

If termination carries civil consequences or affects a right to continue in a sanctioned post, procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed.

No show cause notice or hearing was given. Therefore, the action was procedurally unsustainable.

Final Directions

The Court:

Quashed orders dated 02.03.2019 and 19.03.2019
Directed reinstatement
Granted notional pay fixation
Ordered back wages
Directed compliance within 60 days

Importantly, the Court clarified it expressed no opinion on regularization .

What This Means for Contractual Employees

This judgment establishes five practical principles:

  • Sanctioned contractual posts enjoy stronger protection
  • Blanket discontinuation orders must be carefully interpreted
  • Executive policy can create enforceable safeguards
  • Natural justice applies even to contractual staff
  • Umadevi is not an automatic shield for the State

If you are:

  • Working under a government scheme
  • Appointed through a proper selection process
  • Serving against a sanctioned post
  • Discontinued without notice

You may have a strong case for reinstatement.

Practical Takeaway for Litigation Strategy

Before filing a writ petition, verify:

  • Was the post sanctioned?
  • Was reservation applied?
  • Is there a policy governing contractual termination?
  • Was notice or hearing given?

These factors can decisively tilt the case.

If you are facing similar discontinuation under a government scheme, consult a service law specialist to assess your remedy under Article 226.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Does this judgment regularize contractual employees?
No. The Court explicitly stated it did not decide regularization.
2. Can all contractual employees claim reinstatement?
No. Protection depends on whether the post was sanctioned and due process followed.
3. What if my post was not sanctioned?
Relief becomes more difficult unless other legal violations exist.
4. Is Umadevi still applicable?
Yes, but it does not bar relief where appointments were made against sanctioned posts.
5. Is notice mandatory before termination?
If policy requires it or termination has civil consequences, yes.
6. Can back wages be granted?
Yes, courts may award back wages depending on facts.
7. Does long service alone create a right?
No. But long service strengthens equity arguments.
8. Can this apply to other schemes besides MNREGA?
Yes, if similar facts exist (sanctioned posts + due process violation).

Durgaprasad & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2019 (Connected: W.P. Nos. 7554/2019 & 7558/2019)

Neutral Citation:
2026:MPHC-IND:3653
Court:
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Bench:
Hon’ble Shri Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Presiding Judge(s):
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Judgment Date:
28 January 2026
Year:
2026
FULL JUDGMENT CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM MPHC.GOV.IN

Disclaimer

This post is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, financial advice, or professional advice of any kind. Laws and their interpretation may vary depending on facts, circumstances, and jurisdiction.

Neither Siddharth Shukla, Advocate, nor any associate, partner, or member of Siddharth Shukla Office, Jabalpur, accepts any responsibility or liability for any loss, damage, or consequence arising from reliance on this content.

Readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified lawyer or appropriate professional for advice specific to their situation. Reading this content does not create a lawyer–client relationship.