JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

[1] Heard Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent – State as also Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

[2] RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP as also Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned advocate, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

[2.1] With the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for hearing.

[3] The present petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) That this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to admit this Special Civil Application, b) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow the petition by issuing a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Authorities to grant the benefits of permanency to the petitioner in terms of the the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 or otherwise from the date he became eligible to it.

C) Your Lordships maybe pleased to direct the respondents to release retiral benefits in favor of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest per annum.

d) Your Lordships may be pleased to award any such other and further relief as may be deemed just and expedient in the interest of justice.”

BRIEF FACTS

[4] The short facts of the present case appear to be that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4 – Patidad Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayat’) vide its Resolution No.6 dated 20.10.1984, as a daily wager for the work of repairing streetlight on a fixed wage of Rs.350/- p.m. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner worked with the Panchayat till he reached the age of superannuation, i.e., 2017. Prior thereto, he had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.2032 of 2016 seeking benefit of permanency on completion of 10 years of the service. This Court, vide its order dated 09.02.2016, directed the respondent to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the pronouncement of this Court dated 04.02.2016 passed in SCA No.10829 of 2003.

[4.1] It appears that respondent No.1 – State vide its order dated 02.01.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment was not as per Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and there was no sanctioned post on which petitioner could have been appointed by the Panchayat. It is also observed in the said order that appointment of the petitioner is subsequent to 05.06.1984, thereby, as per Resolution dated 09.09.1996 of the State, post cannot be created and no benefits can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[5] Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that as per the settled position of law, once the petitioner - workman continued in service for more than 10 years, he is entitled to receive the benefit of regularization. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and worked till his superannuation, i.e., 2017.

[5.1] Mr. Devnani, learned advocate, would further submit that other similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of regularization and the petitioner has been left out from such benefits. It is also submitted that at no point of time, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Panchayat and as per recent past decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court may grant the benefit of regularization.

[5.2] To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Bhola Nath V/s. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129

(ii) Jaggo V/s. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 296

(iii) Dharam Singh and others V/s. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 3897

(iv) Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India rep