IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S.SUPEHIA, R.T.VACHHANI
Nandlal Arvindbhai Savaliya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas seeks permission to delete the private respondents. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The private respondents stand deleted from the cause-title.
2. ADMIT. Mr.Raj Tanna, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for respondents No.3 to 7 waive service of notice of admission. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.
3. The captioned group of LPAs is directed against the common oral judgment dated 12.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.13821 of 2015 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petitions filed by the appellants-original the petitioners seeking regularization of their services and not to terminate them from their employment, without following the procedure which is being followed in case of permanent employees.
BRIEF FACTS :
4. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute which are as under:
4.1 It is the case of the appellants-original petitioners that the respondent being Gujarat State Watershed Management
The court ruled that contractual employees for specific projects lack a right to regularization upon project completion, reinforcing employer discretion in employment terms.
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.
Contractual appointments do not confer entitlements to regularization or regular pay unless explicitly provided, aligning with the principle of equal pay for equal work only under specific circumstan....
Contractual employees cannot claim regularization or a regular pay scale unless stipulated in their contract, and performance assessments are necessary for contract renewal.
(1) Regularisation of temporary employees – Appellants’ long and uninterrupted service for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointme....
Regularization of employees with irregular appointments who have served for a significant duration is constitutionally mandated when they fulfill essential duties, emphasizing equity and justice in p....
Regularization of long-serving daily wage employees is mandated after 10 years of service, acknowledging functional continuity despite initial irregularities, violating constitutional rights otherwis....
Long-standing service and fulfillment of criteria establish entitlement for regularization under service law, preventing arbitrary denial of rights.
Longstanding service in public roles warrants regularisation and cannot be arbitrarily denied based on technicalities; constitutional principles require fair treatment of employees.
Contractual employees appointed for specific projects do not have a right to regularization or absorption in permanent positions, as per established Supreme Court precedents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.