MANOJKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) vs GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21409 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MANOJKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,2,3,4
MS. NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the
petitioners, Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for
the respondent No. 1 – Board and Ms. Nidhi Vyas,
learned AGP for the respondent - State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following
reliefs:
“(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
other appropriate writ, order or direction to be issued
(i) to hold and declare that decision of the respondents as
conveyed vide letter dated 29.07.2016 of the respondent No.1 in
not absorbing the petitioners in the permanent establishment is
illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and be pleased to quash and set
aside the said decision respondents; of the
(ii) to hold and declare decision on part of that the respondents
in not considering the case of the petitioners for absorbing them
in regular set-up of the Board illegal, unjust and violative of
fundamental right of the petitioners;
(iii) to hold and declare that action on the part of the
respondents in not extending higher grade pay-scale to the
petitioners is illegal, unjust and violative of fundamental right of
the petitioners and further may be pleased to direct the
respondent-Board to extend benefits of higher grade pay-scale to
the petitioners;
(iv)To direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as
permanent employees on the post of Additional Assistant
Engineer (Civil) and grant them benefit of permanency on the
said post from the date of initial appointment and further
directing the respondents to pay all incidental and consequential
benefits both pecuniary and non pecuniary arising and entailing
thereby;
(v) To direct the respondents to make payment of higher
grade pay-scale after petitioners' completion of nine years of
service on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) and
thereafter extend benefits to of second higher grade pay-scale;
(vi) To direct the respondents to calculate arrears in pursuance
to the fixation grade pay-scale in of higher pursuance to their
absorption in permanent establishment and to make payment of
the said arrears along with interest at the rate of 18%;
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the
petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the extend
benefit respondents of to higher grade pay-scale to the
petitioners;
(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be
granted;”
3. BRIEF FACTS:
3.1 All the petitioners were appointed as Additional
Assistant Engineers (Civil) Class-III by respondent -
Gujarat Maritime Board (hereinafter referred to as the
“Board”), on different dates. The details of their
appointments and retirements read thus:
CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PETITIONERS
Sr.
No. Petitioner Name
Designations Date of
Joining
Date of
Retirement/Dea
th
1. Manojkumar Kanubhai
Patel
Since Deceased
through Falguniben
Manojkumar Patel w/o
of Manojkumar Patel
Additional
Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
Class-III
09.10.1991 26.04.2024
(Death)
2. Dakshesh Himatlal
Dave
Additional
Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
Class-III
25.10.1991 30.06.2022
3. Raghuram Keshavdas
Yadav
Additional
Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
Class-III
12.05.1992 30.04.2022
4. Maheshbhai
Premjibhai Gadhia
Additional
Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
Class-III
16.08.1993 30.07.2022
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
3.2 The petitioner No. 3 belongs to Scheduled Castes,
whereas others belong to the general category. This
requires to be mentioned here because of the fact that
despite there being no policy to regularize the service of
work-charge engineers only belong to reserved categories,
the Board has in fact regularized the services of such
work-charge, though junior to the petitioners. The similar
benefits were not granted to the petitioners being general
category. The said fact is undisputed, inasmuch as
following two cases of employees who belong to reserved
category, their services have been regularized by the
Board which read thus:
Sr.
No.
NAME OF THE
EMPLOYEES
DESIGNATIO
N/POST
DATE OF
APPOINTMENT
Date of
Regularizati
on
1. Sunil V. Pithva Assistant
Additional
10.05.1993 18.01.2000
Engineer
(Civil)
2. Bacharbhai Khadiya Assistant
Additional
19.09.1995 13.01.2000
Engineer
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
3.3 From the aforesaid facts and details which are
undisputed between the parties, it is discernible that
there is a discrimination meted out to the petitioners by
the respondent, as their services were not regularized till
they reached to the age of superannuation. The issue
germane in the matter is no longer res integra, as
covered by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court:
(i) Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2025 SC
296 .
(ii) Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 .
(iii) Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others
reported in 2026 INSC 99.
(iv) Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India reported
in 2026 LawSuit(SC) 156 .
3.4 In the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that
where the employee concerned is appointed not illegally
and his status continued as temporary/ad hoc for years
together till the age of superannuation, in that factual
scenario, the service of such employee is required to be
regularized.
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
4. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
4.1 Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners,
would submit that the petitioners were appointed as
work-charge Assistant Engineers by the Board from years
1991 to 1993, but remained on such positions till retired
as not being granted benefits available to other regular
employees of the Board. It is submitted that the
impugned action of the Board is not only arbitrary, but
also discriminatory and thereby, it is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
4.2 Mr. Dave, learned advocate, would submit that
despite there being two orders passed by this Court, the
cases of the petitioners have not been considered for
regularization by the respondent. It is submitted that
when it has been brought to the notice of this Court
that employees junior to the petitioners had been
regularized in service, this Court, vide its order dated
08.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17313
of 2013, has categorically directed the State to keep that
the said fact in mind while considering the proposal of
the Board in regard to regularization of the petitioners.
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
4.3 Mr. Dave, learned advocate, would submit that in
the absence of any policy to regularize only reserved
caste employees appointed on work-charge, the Board
could not deny the benefit of regularization in favour of
the petitioners. It is submitted that in spite of such
direction and order passed by this Court, vide impugned
order dated 29.07.2016, the Board has erroneously
rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that
there is no policy to regularize the services of the
petitioners.
4.4 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for
the petitioner would request this Court to allow the
present writ petition.
4.5 To buttress his argument, Mr. Dave, learned
advocate for the petitioners, would rely upon the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) Jaggo (supra).
(ii) Dharam Singh (supra).
(iii) Bhola Nath (supra).
(iv) Pawan Kumar (supra).
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
5. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
5.1 Per contra, Ms. Raval, learned advocate for the
respondent - Board, would submit that there is no error
committed by the Board while rejecting the claim of the
petitioners vide impugned order dated 29.07.2016. It is
submitted that before regularizing the service of the
petitioners, the Board had sent proposal to the State,
but no recommendation/approval received from the State
to regularize the services of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the Board on its own cannot regularize
the services of the petitioners in the absence of any
approval granted by the State.
5.2 Ms. Raval, learned advocate, would further submit
that those two junior engineers, whose services were
regularized, belong to the reserved category and,
accordingly, their services are regularized with the
sanction of the Government. It is submitted that
petitioners were belong to general category than no
parity can be claimed by them with that junior engineer.
5.3 Ms. Raval, learned advocate, would try to submit
that as such, all pay and allowances being paid to the
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
petitioners even though appointed as work-charge except
not granted only the higher pay scale and promotion. It
is submitted that unlike the cases cited, petitioners are
not put in any disadvantageous situation, rather being
paid regular pay against their work received by the
Board and have been paid leave encashment, medical
leave, GPF, etc.
5.4 To buttress her argument, she has relied upon the
decision the following decision:
(i) Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639.
5.5 Ms. Vyas, learned AGP, would submit that the
petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts
and, in the absence of any policy of the Government to
regularize their services, there is no error on the part of
the State when it did not grant approval to the Board.
5.6 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for
the respondent – Board and learned AGP would request
this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
6. No other and further submissions have been made
by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS:
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and upon perusal of their pleadings
and documents, and as referred to hereinabove, it is not
in dispute that two junior engineers to the petitioners
were regularized in their services, but for no valid and
justifiable reason, the services of the petitioners were not
regularized until they retired from their services, albeit
during the pendency of this petition. It is now well
settled legal position of law that appointments of daily
wagers/temporary/ad hoc workers/employees must be
regularized, if they have been working for more than 10
years on the very post, unless their initial appointments
were illegal or against sanctioned posts. It is not a case
made out by the respondent that the appointments of
the petitioners were illegal in any manner.
7.1 Furthermore, there is no justification on the part of
the Board to regularize the service of the reserved
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
category employees, who were engaged as work-charge
engineers like petitioners, albeit junior to them. There is
nothing on record and as such, there is no policy,
whereby the Board could have taken such decision. Such
an action of the Board is not only arbitrary, but
discriminatory in nature, and requires to be quashed and
set aside.
8.1 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely
upon the recent past decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) observed and held
thus:
“ 8. It is also material to note that subsequently in the case of
Raman Kumar v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of
2023], this Court referred to the adjudication in the Ravi Verma
(supra) and on 03.07.2023 directed regularization of services of
the appellants therein. This was for the reason that the Income
Tax Department could not have discriminated in the matter of
regularizing the services of similarly situated employees.
On the same analogy, we find that the present appellants also
being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated from the
appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.
9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid down
by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the
appellants in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13,
20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:
“13. The claim by the respondents that these were not
regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work
performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates their
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their
initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy
that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to
private agencies after the appellants' termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This
act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of
workers with another, further underscores that the work
in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi
(supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees
had served continuously against the backdrop of
sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need
for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis
can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.
In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v.
Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of 2023], it was
held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used
to deny regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed
the same duties as performed by the regular employee
over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely
with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable
period through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific notification for
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by
a selection process involving written tests and
interviews, which distinguishes their case from the
appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between “irregular” and
“illegal” appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain appointments
even if were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be
said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments
such as conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial
label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing
decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look
beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of
employment : continuous, long-term service,
indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of
cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose,
effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.”
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that the
Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by
relying upon the decision in Umadevi (supra). The High Court
also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The
appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this Court
in Ravi Verma (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar (supra).”
(emphasis supplied)
8.2 Likewise, in the case of Dharam Singh (supra),
after noticing the previous case laws, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held thus:
“11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance
placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit
the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the
challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a
challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts
despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and
decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On
the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction
between illegal appointments and irregular engagements
and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious
employment where the work itself is permanent and the
State has failed, for years, to put its house in order . Recent
decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826.] and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 .] have emphatically
cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a
shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of
basic parity where identical duties are exacted over
extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply
with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from
Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing
such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated,
Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments
that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the
latter being eligible for regularization if they meet
certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi
cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative
engagements persisting for years without the
Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given
the record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite
daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even
if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the
Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite
directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under
well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour
law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally,
workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements
year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
“temporary” employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
India3 in the following paragraphs:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized
by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized
for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted
with upholding the principles of fairness and
justice, bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade
long-term obligations owed to employees.
These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
and integral to the functioning of an institution
are often labelled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or
notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural
justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions,
or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic
disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with
another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits :
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even
when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families
to undue hardship, especially in cases of
illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.””
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to
perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the appellants are not
“full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long history
of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the
State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist
nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper
adjudication of the legality of those refusals.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is not out of place to mention here that the
Board, vide its letter dated 13.05.2016, requested the
State to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization, who were working for 24 years as work-
charge, and by regularizing their services, no additional
financial burden would be caused to the Board. This
itself proved that nature of work discharged by the
petitioners were perennial in nature, thereby their
services need to be regularized.
10. This Court had also, vide its order dated 08.07.2015
passed in Special Civil Application No. 17313 of 2013
Coram: the then Hon’ble Mr.
filed by petitioner No. 1 herein, [
Justice J.B. Pardiwala
] observed and directed thus:
“8. It seems that although the respondent-Board forwarded a
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
proposal dated 25.09.2012 to the State Government for
regularization of the service of the petitioner herein and three
other employees yet no decision has been taken by the State
Government on such proposal. It is very unfortunate that three
years have passed yet the Government has not bothered pass any
appropriate order on the proposal. Here is a petitioner working
past 22 years with the Board and knocking the doors of the Court
for regularization. It seems, the Government has no time to
consider proposals for regularization of Work-Charged
employees working past 22 years without any promotion and
higher pay scale. It appears that the Board has also not bothered
to pursue the matter with to the State Government.
9. One last chance is given to the State Government to pass an
appropriate order on the proposal of the respondent-Board dated
25.09.2012 Annexure R-1 to this petition at page 108. The State
Government is directed to consider the proposal of the
respondent- Board referred to above and pass necessary orders
on the same in accordance with law within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. Any lapse
on the part of the concerned Department will be viewed very
strictly in the facts of this case.
10. Mr.Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
pointed out that the employees junior to his clients have been
regularized in service. If that be so, it is really very unfortunate
and this aspect should also be kept in mind by the State
Government while considering the proposal of the respondent-
board. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is
made absolute.”
10.1 Even though, in past, this Court had passed
several orders/directions to the respondent to objectively
consider the claim of the petitioners seeking
regularization of their services, it appears that vide
impugned order dated 29.07.2016, it has rejected such
claim erroneously on the ground that there is no such
policy. To come out from the charge of discrimination,
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
the Board has carved out an exception in regards to
regularization of services of those two junior engineers to
the petitioners on the ground that they belong to the
SEBC category (i.e., reserved category). As recorded in
the beginning, petitioner No. 3 happens to be a
Scheduled Caste candidate. If such would be the case, at
least his claim could not have been turned down by the
Board. In any case, in the absence of any such policy of
reservation as regards regularization of service of only
reserved category work-charge engineers made available
on the record, according to my view, the impugned
decision of the respondent – the Board and State is
arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, which requires to be interfered
with by this Court.
11. The judgment cited by Ms. Raval, learned advocate,
in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey (supra) would not
be applicable to the facts of the present case as in that
particular case, no case of discrimination made out on
the record.
12. The upshot of aforesaid observations, discussions
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
and reasons, I found merit in the claim of the
petitioners, thereby accept the submissions of the
petitioner. At the same time, I am not at all impressed
by any submissions of the learned advocates for the
respondents, thus, the same are hereby rejected for the
aforesaid reasons.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned
order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Board is hereby
quashed and set aside.
13.1 The respondent - Board is hereby directed to pass
an order of regularization of the services of the
petitioners upon completion of 10 years of their service
from the date of their initial appointment as work-charge
engineers. Such order shall be passed on or before
15.03.2026.
13.2 All consequential benefits including arrears of
the amounts flowing from the order of regularization
shall be passed on to the petitioners as well as the
widow of petitioner No. 1 on or before 30.04.2026. In a
case of failure by the Board to pay the said benefits in
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026

C/SCA/21409/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
time, the petitioners are entitled to receive such benefits
with 6% from 01.05.2026 till its realization from the
respondent - Board.
14. In view of foregoing conclusions, the present writ
petition is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no
order as to cost.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 24 21:11:01 IST 2026