Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J.Shelat, J.
Dineshbhai Amarshi Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16714 of 2013
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR BHUVNESH GEHLOT FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR
For the Respondent: MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, AGP, MR DEVANG BHATT FOR MR HS MUNSHAW

Employees performing perennial and recurring duties for the state cannot be indefinitely maintained as temporary workers. Long-term contractual engagements, when the nature of work is permanent, entitle the employee to regularisation and all consequential retirement benefits to ensure constitutional compliance with fairness and equality in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Regularisation - Medical officer appointed on contractual basis serving continuously until superannuation - Nature of work perennial - Contingency clause for termination upon availability of regularly selected candidate never triggered - Right to regularisation on completion of ten years of service. (Paras 3, 8, 9, 10)

(B) Service Law - Public Employment - Regularisation - State as constitutional employer cannot extract permanent and recurring labour under temporary labels to evade obligations - Continued contractual engagement for decades without regular recruitment constitutes exploitation - Denial of parity when duties are identical to regular counterparts infringes constitutional principles. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a medical officer on a temporary contract in 1986, subject to a condition of termination upon the availability of a regularly selected candidate. The petitioner served continuously in the same position until retirement in 2015. No regular candidate was ever appointed to replace the petitioner, and the nature of the work remained essential and perennial throughout the entire service tenure.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the employer could not dispute the perennial nature of the work. Holding that the state cannot treat long-term service as a temporary arrangement to avoid financial or administrative responsibilities, the court determined that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation with all consequential benefits upon completion of ten years of service, in line with constitutional requirements for fairness and equity.

Issues: Whether a medical officer, whose service persisted continuously for decades without the triggering of the specific termination condition, is entitled to regularisation and consequential pensionary benefits after reaching superannuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of employment is perennial and the state fails to substantiate the need for indefinite temporary engagement, the continuation of an employee for decades without regularisation constitutes an arbitrary practice. Judicial precedents mandate that the state must uphold its duties as a constitutional employer by regularising such services and granting associated retiral benefits rather than exploiting workers under the guise of temporary contractual arrangements.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual history and background of long-term temporary employment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7)
2. arguments concerning entitlement to regularization vs legality of temporary appointments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. analysis of perennial nature of duties and state's obligation to regularize. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. application of constitutional precedents prohibiting perpetual 'ad-hoc' employment. (Para 11 , 12)
5. directives for mandatory regularization and grant of retiral benefits. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate for Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr.Devang Bhatt, learned advocate for Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.4.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

i) admit this petition;

ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for regularization/permanent absorption on the permanent sanctioned post of Medical Officer, Class-II;

iii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the communication/ order dated 7/9/2013 and be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions restraining the respondent authorities from terminating the services/putting an end to the services of the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid communication/ order dated 7/9/2013;

iv) grant interim relief and be pleased to restrain the concerned respondent authorities from terminating the services of the petitioner pending admission and final hearing of this petition;

3. It is not in dispute between the parties that upon getting an appointment on 01/02/1986, till the age of superannuation, i.e., 31/08/2015, the petitioner continued in the service of the respondents as Medical Officer, Class-II. The services of the petitioner were never regularized on the ground that he was appointed pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 18/10/1985. As per the aforesaid Resolution, the Medical Officer can be appointed for a period of two years subject to he/she executes the bond. As per the conditions stipulated in the said Resolution, in a case where during the period of the bond, any candidate selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) is made available, the services of such appointed Medical Officer will be terminated. So far in the case of the petitioner is concerned, nothing has happened up to the date of his superannuation meaning thereby, there was no other candidate selected by GPSC to be appointed in his place. Thus, the petitioner all throughout continued in service from the initial date of appointment until he retired.

4. Mr. Gehlot, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that considering the fact that the petitioner all throughout continued in the service of the respondents until his superannuation, his services required to be regularized and the petitioner ought to have been absorbed in the post on which he was serving as Medical Officer, Class-II. It is submitted that as per the recent past decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in number of cases, in a similar set of facts and circumstances, orders of regularization have been passed by the Honourable Apex Court and the same shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner as well.

4.1 To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Jaggo vs. Union of India and others – 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 : 2024 INSC 1034.

(ii) Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – 2025 SCC Online SC 221 : 2025 GLH (3) 142.

(iii) Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another – 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 : AIR 2025 SC 3897.

(iv) The State of Gujarat and others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel – 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187.

5. Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP submits that the petitioner was not a regularly selected candidate and he was appoin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADMaulik J.Shelat, J.Dineshbhai Amarshi Parmar – Appellant VersusState Of Gujarat & Ors.SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16714 of 2013Decided On : 21-04-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J.Shelat, J.
Dineshbhai Amarshi Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16714 of 2013
Decided On : 21-04-2026