Contractual employees performing perennial work are entitled to regularization and creation of posts despite absence of sanctions.

The petitioners were appointed on various technical and administrative posts on a contractual basis between 2012 and 2014 under the "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" (PMGSY)

They alleged that they had worked continuously since their appointment, subject only to "technical breaks" designed to deny them permanency benefits

The petitioners sought the creation of permanent posts and regularization of their services, citing a prior decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in *Mahesh Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra (WP 3489/2015)*

The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the *Mahesh Bhagat* judgment was *per incuriam* as it ignored settled law prohibiting courts from directing the creation of posts or granting regularization in the absence of sanctioned posts

The Court applied the principle of *stare decisis* and judicial discipline, holding that a Co-ordinate Bench is bound by the decisions of an earlier Bench of equal strength to ensure uniformity

Regarding regularization, the court balanced earlier restrictive precedents like *State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde* against more recent Supreme Court trends in *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024), *Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.* (2025), and *Pawan Kumar v. Union of India* (2026)

These later cases establish that if work is perennial, the executive’s refusal to create posts is subject to judicial review, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally

The Court rejected the State's request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, finding that the *Mahesh Bhagat* decision was not "manifestly erroneous" as it relied on the most recent Supreme Court jurisprudence

The Court noted that PMGSY is a scheme funded and controlled by the State/Union, and the work involved is of a "perennial nature," extending at least until 2047

It observed that the State’s practice of giving "technical breaks" was a tactic to circumvent the rights of employees

Following the doctrine of judicial propriety, the Court held that since the petitioners were identically situated to those in the previous litigation, they could not be discriminated against or denied the same relief

The Court emphasized that the executive's power to create posts is not immune from judicial scrutiny when exercised arbitrarily to prevent regularization of long-term employees

The Respondents were specifically directed to create the necessary posts within the Zilla Parishad, State Government, or the Society to absorb the petitioners

The Court further ordered the payment of salary arrears for the three years preceding the filing of the petitions, along with bank interest, to be cleared within six months