Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.
Ravi Dilipkumar Joshi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 15653 of 2018 With Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2021 With Civil Application (Fixing Date of Early Hearing) No. 1 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2025 With Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2026 With Civil Application (For Direction) No. 2 of 2021
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj T. Danak, Mr. H.J. Dholakia, Mr. M.J. Mehta, Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta, Mr. Shubhang H. Shah.
For the Respondents:Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jay Trivedi, AGP, Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi, Mr. Deepak P. Sanchela, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, Mr. R.R. Trivedi.

Employment under temporary government schemes does not grant a right to continued service after the scheme concludes. However, employers remain legally obligated to pay earned salary arrears and mandated pay revisions for services rendered, notwithstanding administrative funding delays or pending judicial proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Engagement under temporary government scheme - Right to continuation - Employees appointed under time-bound project schemes possess no inherent or indefensible right to continue in service once the scheme concludes. (Para 12.1)

(B) Service Law - Salary arrears and revision - Obligation of employer - Administrative failure to receive grants or misinterpretation of judicial interim orders does not absolve the employer from the legal liability to pay earned wages and mandated salary revisions for work already performed. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, engaged under various time-bound project schemes, approached the court seeking continuation of their services and revision of their salaries based on central guidelines. Their petition was initially admitted with an order of status quo based on assertions of parity with other proceedings. However, the foundational petitions relied upon by the petitioners were dismissed by coordinate benches and confirmed by appellate authorities and the highest court.

Findings of Court:
The court held that as the underlying scheme-based employment had reached its maturity, the petitioners could not claim a right to continued employment. Regarding the claims for salary, the court observed that employers cannot withhold earned wages or deny mandated pay revisions citing funding delays or misinterpretations of judicial orders, as such actions deprive workers of their legitimate rights for services rendered.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether contractual employees under a specific scheme are entitled to service continuation upon the scheme's completion and whether the implementing authorities are obligated to clear salary arrears and implement pay revisions during the pendency of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Temporary, scheme-based appointments do not confer a legitimate expectation of permanent or continued employment. Conversely, the right to receive earned salary and legally mandated revisions is an absolute right that the employer must satisfy, regardless of administrative or budgetary constraints.

Result: Petition dismissed; applications partly allowed with specific directions to facilitate payment of dues.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and initial admission of petition. (Para 1)
2. parties' contentions on precedents and employment grievances. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. dismissal of petition due to binding judicial precedents. (Para 12 , 13)
4. entitlement to salary arrears and revised pay scales. (Para 14 , 15)
5. final order of disposal and vacation of interim relief. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, it is required to be observed that despite the repeated orders passed by this Court on 12.01.2026 and 13.04.2026, one of the learned advocates appearing for some petitioners namely Mr. Manoj T. Danak, has filed leave note today. The aforesaid orders dated 12.01.2026 and 13.04.2026 as follow:

“The order dated 12.01.2026 read as under,

“[1] Mr. R.R. Trivedi and Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi, learned advocates for respondent No.6, though appeared jointly, have filed leave notes.

[2] Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta, learned advocate with Mr. H.J. Dholakia, learned advocates for the respective petitioners, would request this Court that there is some urgency in the matter and therefore, a short date may be granted.

[3] Considering the issue germane and urgency pressed by the learned advocates for the petitioners, S. O. to 29th January, 2026.

[4] It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, no sick note or leave note of the learned advocates for the respective parties will be entertained.”

“The order dated 13.04.2026 read as under,

1. This Court vide its order dated 12.01.2026, passed the following order:

“[1] Mr. R.R. Trivedi and Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi, learned advocates for respondent No.6, though appeared jointly, have filed leave notes.

[3] Considering the issue germane and urgency pressed by the learned advocates for the petitioners, S. O. to 29th January, 2026.

[4] It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, no sick note or leave note of the learned advocates for the respective parties will be entertained.”

2. Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, it is reported that Mr. Manoj T. Danak and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocates for the respective petitioners and the respondents are on leave note.

3. At the same time, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for one of the respondents would also request this Court that there is some urgency in the matter as the scheme under which the petitioners are engaged is already over.

4. Considering the aforesaid, as a last chance, stand over to 23.04.2026. List on the top of the Board.

5. It is further made clear that on the next date of hearing, no sick note or leave note of the respective learned advocates will be entertained by this Court.”

2. In view of the aforesaid orders and considering the urgency pressed by the respective learned advocates, the matter is heard and taken up for hearing.

3. Heard Mr. H.J. Dholakia and Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta for the respective petitioners, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent No. 6.

4. Before adverting to the issue germane to the matter, I would like to first refer the admission order passed by this Court on 09.10.2018 which reads thus:

“ Learned advocate Mr. Jal Unwala with learned advocate Mr. H.J. Dholakia stated that the facts of the case are similar to Special Civil Application No.19872 of 2017 and the petitioners of the said petition as well as the present petition are similarly situated.

2. In the aforesaid view, Rule.

3. Respondents are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the service of the petitioners during pendency of the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document