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

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

They approached the High Court seeking the creation of permanent posts and benefits of permanency, alleging they had worked continuously with only "technical breaks" designed to deny them regular status

The State contested the petitions, arguing that the Court cannot direct the creation of posts or regularization in the absence of sanctioned posts, as these are exclusive executive functions

The State further contended that a previous coordinate bench decision (*Mahesh Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra*) was *per incuriam* for ignoring Supreme Court precedents on judicial restraint

1. Whether contractual employees working for a long duration in a scheme of perennial nature are entitled to regularization and permanency benefits.

2. Whether the High Court can direct the State to create posts for the purpose of absorption/regularization when the executive has failed to do so.

3. Whether a Coordinate Bench is bound by the decision of an earlier Bench of equal strength on the same legal issue.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the rule of precedence, stating that a coordinate bench must follow earlier decisions of the same court to ensure uniformity

It relied on *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024)

and *Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.* (2025), which established that while creation of posts is an executive function, such decisions are subject to judicial review, and regularization can be granted if the work is perennial

It further cited *Pawan Kumar v. Union of India* (2026) regarding the non-discrimination of similarly situated employees

and distinguished older precedents like *Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Seth Kamgar Union* (2001) by favoring more recent Supreme Court interpretations

The Court reasoned that the petitioners were identically situated to those in the *Mahesh Bhagat* case, where the court found that the PMGSY scheme’s work was "perennial in nature" (extended until 2047) and that "technical breaks" were a tactic to evade permanency obligations

The Bench rejected the State's request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, noting that the *Mahesh Bhagat* decision was based on recent Supreme Court rulings (*Jaggo* and *Dharam Singh*) which allow for judicial intervention in regularization despite the absence of sanctioned posts if the executive action is found wanting

Following the doctrine of *stare decisis* and judicial propriety, the Court held that it must maintain consistency with the earlier coordinate bench's findings to avoid treating similarly situated employees differently

The Court directed the Respondent-Authorities to: (i) regularize the petitioners' services from their initial dates of joining with consequential benefits

(ii) create the necessary posts to absorb the petitioners within the Zilla Parishad, State Government, or the Society

and (iii) pay arrears of salary for a period of three years preceding the filing of the petitions with bank interest

Arrears must be cleared within six months