Administrative regularization of service cannot be abruptly rescinded or deferred without adhering to principles of natural justice.

The 21 Petitioners were appointed to Class IV posts by the Uran Municipal Council (Respondent No. 4) in 1997.

While the Petitioners claimed their appointments followed lawful procedure, the State contended they were made without following prescribed norms.

In 2001, a labor complaint was filed seeking regularization.

During its pendency, the Director of Municipal Administration (Respondent No. 2) issued an order on June 24, 2002, regularizing their services under Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, effective from that date.

Consequently, the Petitioners withdrew their labor complaint.

On June 19, 2006, the Deputy Director issued an impugned order deferring the date of regularization from June 24, 2002, to June 19, 2006, without assigning reasons or providing a hearing.

1. Whether the Respondents could unilaterally defer the date of regularization from a previously settled date without assigned reasons or adhering to the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the impugned order dated June 19, 2006, was legally sustainable given that the Petitioners had already altered their legal position based on the 2002 order.

Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which empowers the Director to regularize appointments.

Principles of Natural Justice (specifically audi alteram partem), necessitating a show-cause notice before passing orders with adverse civil consequences.

Constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, protecting against arbitrary state action and ensuring fairness in public employment.

The Court observed that the 2002 regularization order created vested rights in the Petitioners, who subsequently withdrew their litigation before the Labour Court, thus changing their position to their potential detriment if the order was altered.

The court found the 2006 order to be a "drastic action" taken after a four-year gap without any valid justification or a show-cause notice.

The reasoning in the 2006 order—alleging the Municipal Council recognized appointments from 1997—was found insufficient to override the Director's 2002 order, which the Petitioners had accepted as a "compromise".

The Court determined that the failure to provide a hearing before depriving the Petitioners of four years of regularized service constituted a clear breach of natural justice and constitutional fairness.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated June 19, 2006, and August 10, 2006. Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 were directed to withdraw/cancel the impugned orders insofar as they related to the Uran Municipal Council.

Rule was made absolute with no orders as to costs.