Facts
The petitioners were appointed on various posts on a contractual basis between 2012 and 2014 under the "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" (PMGSY)
Source reference: p. 5, para. 2They approached the High Court seeking the creation of permanent posts and regularization of service, contending they had worked continuously for years, subject only to "technical breaks" designed to deny them permanency benefits
Source reference: p. 5, para. 2The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the Court cannot direct the creation of posts, which is an exclusive executive function, and that regularization cannot be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts
Source reference: p. 6-7, paras. 4-6Issues
Whether contractual employees working for a long duration under a perennial scheme are entitled to regularization and the creation of posts for that purpose
Source reference: p. 5, para. 3; p. 14, para. 16Whether the court should refer the matter to a Larger Bench if prior precedents suggest a different view on the executive's domain over post creation
Source reference: p. 6, para. 4; p. 11, para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied the principle of parity, holding that similarly situated employees must be treated equally
Source reference: p. 10, para. 11as affirmed in *Pawan Kumar v. Union of India* (2026)
Source reference: p. 10, para. 12It relied on *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024) and *Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.* (2025), which establish that executive decisions regarding post-sanctioning are subject to judicial review and that regularization can be granted if the work is perennial
Source reference: p. 8-11, paras. 8-13Furthermore, the court followed the rule of *stare decisis* regarding coordinate benches, noting that a later bench is bound by the view of an earlier bench of equal strength unless it is manifestly erroneous
Source reference: p. 12, paras. 14-15citing *Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.*
Source reference: p. 12, para. 14Reasoning
The Court noted that the issue was already decided by a coordinate bench in *Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra* (WP 3489/2015), which dealt with the same PMGSY scheme
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 3The Court rejected the State’s request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, observing that the *Mahesh* judgment followed recent Supreme Court precedents (*Jaggo* and *Dharam Singh*) which shifted the focus toward protecting employees in perennial roles
Source reference: p. 11-13, paras. 13-16The Court observed that the scheme is funded and controlled by the State, and the work involved is perennial in nature
Source reference: p. 14, para. 16It found that "technical breaks" were a tactic used by the "Welfare Government" to deny benefits, which is impermissible
Source reference: p. 14, para. 16Consequently, judicial propriety demanded following the coordinate bench's decision to ensure uniformity
Source reference: p. 12, para. 14Holding
The Court allowed the Writ Petitions and issued a Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioners' services from their initial dates of joining with all consequential benefits
The Court specifically ordered the authorities to create the necessary posts to absorb the petitioners within the Zilla Parishad, State Government, or the Society
Source reference: p. 15, para. 17(iii)Relief was limited to arrears of salary for three years preceding the filing of the petitions, along with bank interest
Source reference: p. 15, para. 17(iv)Original Court PDF
Supriya Parshuram Saynod v. The Union of India & Ors. [2026:BHC-AUG:8046-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in