Long-term continuous service in sanctioned posts cannot be denied regularization by misapplying the Umadevi judgment.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector by the respondent (Porbandar Nagar Palika) on 21.04.1997 and served continuously for over 20 years until his superannuation on 31.07.2017

In 2009, the respondent passed a resolution to regularize his services effective from 01.10.2009 and granted him 6th Pay Commission benefits; however, the regularization order was stayed by the Collector

While other workmen (drivers) obtained regularization through the Industrial Court, the petitioner’s reference [Ref (IT) No. 101/2012] was rejected on 30.01.2016 on the technical ground that a Sanitary Inspector does not fall under the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for regularization and arrears

1. Whether an employee who has rendered over 20 years of continuous service on a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization despite not being a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act

2. Whether the respondent’s failure to regularize the petitioner, while regularizing other similarly situated employees, amounts to arbitrary discrimination

The Court primarily applied the principles of Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the power to issue directions for substantive justice

It relied on the doctrine established in *State of Karnataka v. Umadevi*, distinguishing between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, noting that long-term service in sanctioned posts warrants regularization as a one-time measure

It further applied recent Supreme Court precedents including *Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2026)* and *Jaggo v. Union of India (2025)*, which hold that procedural formalities or "temporary" labels cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights to employees performing perennial functions

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s 20-year tenure was unblemished and that the post of Sanitary Inspector was a sanctioned, vacant post

The Court found the respondent’s argument regarding the petitioner’s lack of qualifications "untenable," as the respondent itself had appointed him and allowed him to serve until retirement, even granting him additional charges as a Fire Fighter Superintendent

Relying on *Jaggo (supra)* and *Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025)*, the Court reasoned that "outsourcing" or "temporary labels" cannot be used as a shield by the State to justify exploitation through long-term "ad-hocism"

Since the respondent had already regularized a similarly situated Sanitary Sub-Inspector (Mr. Kantilal Dangar), denying the same to the petitioner was discriminatory

The respondent was directed to pass an order regularizing the petitioner’s service with effect from 01.10.2009

The Court ordered that the period from 01.10.2009 to 30.01.2016 be treated as notional, while the petitioner is entitled to actual financial benefits and salary arrears from 01.02.2016 until his superannuation on 31.07.2017

All consequential benefits must be paid by 31.05.2026, failing which a 6% interest rate shall apply