Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R. PEDNEKAR, VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
Supriya Parshuram Saynod – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Through its Additional Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2021 Writ Petition No. 12150 of 2022 With/And Writ Petition No. 12247 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate Mr.P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.B. Girase, Mr. R.B. Bagul, Advocate
Coordinate benches must follow prior decisions granting regularization and post creation to long-term contractual workers in perennial schemes, ensuring equal treatment despite earlier precedents against judicial interference in executive functions.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Contractual appointments under government scheme in 2012 and 2014 - Continuous service except technical breaks to deny permanency benefits - Petitions seeking post creation and regularization - Covered by prior coordinate bench decision relying on later Supreme Court judgments recognizing perennial nature of work and judicial review of executive decisions - Directions issued for post creation, regularization from initial joining dates with consequential benefits and arrears for three years preceding filing with interest - Similarly situated employees must be treated alike to uphold equality. (Paras 2, 3, 11-17)
(B) Judicial Discipline - Coordinate benches bound by earlier coordinate bench decisions on same issue - Cannot take differing view or refer to larger bench merely on reliance on prior or later Supreme Court precedents without manifest error - Rule of precedent ensures uniformity and certainty. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners appointed on contractual basis under scheme, continuously working till date except technical breaks solely to deny permanency, claim identical situation to prior writ petitions allowed granting relief despite absence of sanctioned posts.
Findings of Court:
Authorities directed to create posts for absorption, regularize services from respective initial joining dates with consequential benefits; arrears of salary for three years preceding filing with bank interest within six months.
Issues: Whether court can direct post creation and service regularization absent sanctioned posts; binding effect of coordinate bench precedent over government reliance on Supreme Court judgments prohibiting such directions as executive domain.
Ratio Decidendi: Later Supreme Court judgments permit regularization for perennial work and subject executive post sanction decisions to judicial scrutiny; service jurisprudence mandates similar treatment for similarly situated employees; judicial propriety requires adherence to prior coordinate bench view based on such precedents.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual appointments under pmgsy seek permanency despite breaks. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitions covered by prior coordinate bench relief. (Para 3) |
| 3. no court-directed post creation or regularization without sanctioned posts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. similarly situated employees entitled to equal treatment per recent sc rulings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. coordinate benches bound by prior decisions on same issue. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. regularize services from joining date with arrears and post creation. (Para 17) |
Judgment :
Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the petitioners in these petitions are appointed on various posts on contractual basis from time to time under “Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna” in the year 2012 and 2014, as per the dates and posts specifically mentioned in the respective Writ Petitions. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking creation of posts and for permanency benefits with the contention that since the date of their appointment, they have been continuously working till date, except for technical breaks given only for the purpose of denying the benefits of permanency.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitions are covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3489/2015, Mahesh S/o. Chandrakant Bhagat and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, along with connected matters , dated 23.01.2026. The petitioners being similarly situated and as the issue involved is also same, the petitioners be granted same relief.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State does not dispute the factual assertion of the petitioners, that the petitioners are identically situated as the petitioners in above-noted Writ Petition No.3489/2015, however, he would submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petitions need to be referred to the Larger Bench as the judgment and order in Mahesh S/o. Chandrakant Bhagat (supra) is per incuriam and has been passed by ignoring the settled principle of law that the Courts do not direct the State to create post as creation of post is in exclusive domain of the executive or legislative function and status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court where no such post exists as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various matters.
5. The learned Government Pleader has relied on the judgment in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University Vs. Nasik Zilla Seth Kamgar Union and others , (2001) 1 SCC 346, wherein it is held that, the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no sanctioned post. The same ratio is reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. R.S. Bhonde and others , (2005) 6 SCC 751.
6. The learned Government Pleader further relied on the judgments in Hari Handan Prasad and others Vs. Employer I/R Management , (2014) 7 SCC 190, Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi and others , (2021) 20 SCC 290, the State of Gujrat Vs. R.J. Pathan , 2022 Live Law 313 and Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Thane Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware , (2023) 1 SCC 456 and would submit that in all these judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that merely because the worker had held the post for a long period of time will not mean that he is entitled to regularization of service. Merely because an employee is continued for a longer period on contractual basis, the order of regularization cannot be directed when there is no sanctioned post. In absence of any sanctioned post, directions for regularization of service cannot be issued. It is further held that the High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226, cannot issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts.
7. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgments in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Vs. Workmen Indian Drugs, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Divisional Manager Vs. Chander Hass and ot
