IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation – No such direction can be issued by High Court for absorption/regularisation of employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that too, by creating supernumerary posts.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal (for short, 'LPA) No. 2082/2011, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said LPA and directed the State to consider the cases of the respondents for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, the State has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nut-shell are as under:

That the respondents herein were appointed on contractual basis for a period of eleven months on a fixed salary and on a particular project, namely, "Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme" of the Government of Gujarat. That the respondents herein were initially appointed for a period of eleven months in the year 2004 to the post of drivers. On closure of the project in which the respondents were appointed, instead of terminating the services of the respondents herein, the State Government took a decision to place them in the services of Indian Red Cross Society. Instead of joining the duties in the Indian Red Cross Society, the respondents approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 17328/2011 for regularisation of their services and absorption in Government service. The original writ petitioners also challenged their placement with the Indian Red Cross Society.

2.1 The learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2011 dismissed the said writ petition by observing that the appointment of the original writ petitioners was only for eleven months on a fixed salary, which has been continued from time to time, and the unit in which they were appointed temporarily was a "Project Implementation Unit" only for the purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for the "Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme" and they were not regularly appointed on any permanent sanctioned posts in any establishment of the Government where the writ petitioners have any lien.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the respondents herein- original writ petitioners preferred LPA No. 2082/2011 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By an interim order dated 20.12.2011, respondents herein were continued in service with the State Government and they were not even transferred to the Indian Red Cross Society. The said LPA came up for hearing before the Division Bench in the year 2021. Before the Division Bench, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents herein - original writ petitioners that as they have been continuously working in the Government Departments and they have not been transferred to Indian Red Cross Society and since they have by now working for seventeen years, the Government may be directed to consider the case for regularisation in the service as long period has passed.

2.3 By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the State/Department to consider the cases of the respondents herein for absorption and regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, solely on the ground that the respondents herein - original writ petitions by now have worked for seventeen years.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the State to consider the cases of the respondents for absorption/regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts.

3.1 It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the respondents were initially appointed for a fixed period of eleven