Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Vishvnath Prahladbhai Pandya – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11827 of 2019 with Civil Application (Direction) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Regular Employees - Employment Regularization - Resolution dated 28.06.2022 - The court rejected the petitioners' plea for regularization as regular employees like Gujarat Government employees, citing their initial contractual appointment and acceptance of the terms and conditions. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, which held that employees appointed in temporary units on contractual basis are not entitled to absorption or regularization, as their initial appointment was not on permanent sanctioned posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ directing the respondent authorities to consider them as regular employees and grant them periodical salary revisions, arguing that their services should be regularized and they should be treated at par with government employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' plea for regularization, citing their initial contractual appointment and acceptance of the terms and conditions. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, which held that employees appointed in temporary units on contractual basis are not entitled to absorption or regularization.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, initially appointed on a contractual basis, were entitled to be considered as regular employees and receive periodical salary revisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having accepted the terms and conditions of their contract, were not entitled to be absorbed or regularized in the service, as their initial appointment was in a temporary unit formed to provide succor to earthquake victims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected, and the connected Civil Application for direction was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Order in Special Civil Application No.11827/2019
1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr.Aditya D. Davda waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. The Present writ petition has been filed for the following prayers:-
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Authorities to grant the petitioners periodical revision in their salary and further be pleased to direct the respondent Authorities not to force upon the petitioners to joint through the outsourcing agency and not to terminate their services in case of the petitioners dealing to join outsourcing agency.”
3. The prayers indicate that the petitioners are seeking a direction directing the respondent authority to consider the petitioners as regular employees like the Gujarat Government Employees and not the employees of the outsourcing agencies.
4. All the petitioners are appointed on contractual basis initially in the year 2010 onwards, in the respondent-Project Implementation Unit (PIU).
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be appointed through outsourcing agency as they were working since many years and the Project Implementation Unit was introduced in the State of Gujarat on 30.07.2001 because of the earthquake which occurred in the year 2001. It was framed since there were major damages to the infrastructures of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, though are working for more than 10 years, are transferred and given additional charges even to the higher posts in other departments as and when such services are required. Their services are not regularized. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has submitted that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Department, on contract and have been continued for so many years and hence, they are required to be regularized and treated at par with the Government Employees.
7. It is also submitted that subsequently since the Government realized that the work is of perennial nature, 89 posts were sanctioned by the Resolution dated 28.06.2022 and instead of appointing the petitioners on such posts, an advertisement is issued by the respondent authorities for filling-up such posts on contractual basis. Such advertisement is annexed by way of a draft amendment in Civil Application No.1 of 2022. Mr.Pandya has thus, also placed reliance on the provisions of Resolution dated 28.06.2022, and has submitted that the case of the petitioners is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid resolution and they are required to be appointed on regular post on the regular pay-scale, as mentioned in the said resolution.
8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Aditya D. Davda, on instructions of the Officer who is present before this Court, has specifically made a statement that the advertisement is issued for the purpose of taking the work through outsourcing agency on the contractual basis and the 89 posts, which are mentioned in the resolution are not intended to be filled-in. Learned AGP Mr.Davda has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court on the analogous issue in case of State of Gujarat and other v. R.J. Pathan and others (Civil Appeal No.1951 of 2022) and has submitted that in an identical issue of an employee, who was appointed in the very same Project Implementation Unit, who had claimed regularization, the Supreme Court has set aside the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court for absorption and regularization. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioners would be governed by the law enunciated by the Ap
Employees appointed in temporary units on contractual basis are not entitled to absorption or regularization, as their initial appointment was not on permanent sanctioned posts.
Continuous and necessary service by contractual employees requires consideration for regularization, transcending mere contractual limitations, provided sanctioned posts exist.
The regularization of long-serving contractual employees is mandated when their roles are inherently permanent, ensuring compliance with employment laws and protections against exploitation.
Regularization of employees must consider equitable treatment and the rights of long-serving individuals, given principles of fairness under the Constitution.
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 to....
The State's arbitrary rejection of a long-term temporary employee's regularization claim violates constitutional rights and obligations, emphasizing the need for fair employment practices under Artic....
The principle of regularization of services and grant of regular pay-scale as per relevant government resolutions, and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment in public employment.
Long-serving irregular appointees on sanctioned posts entitled to regularization after 10+ years service, per Jaggo v. UOI clarifying Uma Devi.
Temporary and contractual employees cannot claim regularization based solely on long service without following established recruitment procedures as mandated by the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
