Parmar Gopalbhai Thakarshibhai vs Stae Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Parmar Gopalbhai Thakarshibhai vs Stae Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/15316/2017                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15316 of 2017
                                                   With
                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14917 of 2017
                                                   With
                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15464 of 2017

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                      =============================================
                                  Approved for Reporting                   Yes             No
                                                                                             √
                      =============================================
                                          PARMAR GOPALBHAI THAKARSHIBHAI
                                                       Versus
                                              STAE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      =============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS PS PALMER(1456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR PARTH PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                      Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR LAKHPATSINH DABHI(2289) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
                      =============================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                   Date : 25/11/2025
                                                COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Sneha Joshi for the petitioners seek permission to add Regional Commissioner of Municipality, Bhavnagar Zone and Commissioner of Municipalities, Gandhinagar as party respondent Nos.6 and 7. Permission as sought for is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined

2. Issue Rule to newly added respondents, it waived by learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel.

2.1 Heard learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Lakhpatsinh Dabhi appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Parth Patel for the respondent-State and newly added respondents.

3. All these batch of petitions filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, are involving common questions of law thereby, heard together and decided by way of this common judgment.

3.1 To better understand the controversy germane in the matter, facts of Special Civil Application No.15316 of 2017 have been taken into account, which as follow.

4. The aforesaid petition has been filed, seeking the following reliefs :

"A. Your lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his joining in the service i.e 18/10/2006 and to grant all the consequential and accrued benefits thereto with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. (AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed on 21-4-2017 by the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined respondent No.4 municipality by further issuing appropriate and suitable directions in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed on 21/4/2017 by directing respondent municipality to treat the petitioner as regular employee of the municipality with all benefits accrued therein in the interest of justice.

C. Yours Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioner during the pendency and final disposal of the petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with direction to pay the salaries regularly during the pendency and final disposal of this petition.

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as permanent employee and grant all the arrears and consequential benefits accrued therein at the earliest in the interest of justice.

E. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent municipality to take appropriate steps before the higher officials in connection with the regularization in the matter of the petitioner during the pendency and final disposal of the petition in the interest of justice.

F. Be pleased to allow this petition with costs."

SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are appointed on the post of Wireman, Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, and Peon respectively, with respondent Nos.4 and 5 - Nagarpalika and having worked for more than 10 years on fixed wages without any misconduct, then entitled to claim the benefit of regularization. It is the further case of the petitioners that Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined respondent Nagarpalika has wrongly denied such benefit vide its impugned communication dated 21.04.2017 whereby, respondent No.4 herein observed that as the initial appointment of petitioners is not with due process of law, their claim of regularization cannot be considered. Thus, their application for regularization has been rejected. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :

6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would place reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another - AIR 2025 SC 3897, whereby she would contend that by now as per settled position of law any employee who is appointed on fixed wages and continuously work for more than 10 years from initial appointment, is entitled to regularization in the services.

6.1 It is further submitted that none of the petitioners were illegally appointed on the respective posts. At the best, it can be said that they were not regularly selected by due process. Thus, their appointment may be an irregular one but not an illegal one. So, learned advocate Ms. Joshi for petitioners would request this Court to pass appropriate orders/directions to the respondent authority to consider the case of each petitioner for regularization by respondents.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dabhi appearing for Municipality - Nagarpalika would respectfully submit that when the initial appointments of the petitioners are not in consonance with the rules and regulations framed by respondent Nagarpalika and when their appointment is not found in order, no error is committed by respondent No.4 when passed the impugned order whereby denied the claim of the petitioners to seek regularization.

7.1 Nonetheless, learned advocate Mr. Dabhi would unable to dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited case.

8. Learned AGP would submit that as there is no proposal received from respondent Nagarpalika and the claim is not found favorable, there is no occasion arise for the respondent State or newly added respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as to whether they are actually entitled to seek regularization on their respective posts or not.

9. No other and further submissions are made.

ANALYSIS :

10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the peculiar facts and Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined circumstances of the present case, so much so that it remains undisputed on the record that petitioners have been appointed on their respective posts as aforesaid and continued for more than 10 years on their respective posts, the claim of petitioners seeking regularization could not have been out rightly rejected by the respondent Nagarpalika solely on the ground that their initial appointment was not as per rules.

11. It is by now a well-settled legal position and also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), that if the initial appointment of the employee concerned is found to be irregular but not illegal and the employer - State allowed such employee to work for more than 10 years on fixed wages, such employee would entitle to claim regularization.

12. At this stage, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties made a joint request that this Court may not go further deep into the merits of the matter, but may pass appropriate orders/directions as it thinks fit.

CONCLUSION :

13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra), the impugned decision dated 21.04.2017 passed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is hereby quashed and set aside.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15316/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined

14. Accordingly, I pass the following order/directions:

(i) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - Barwala Nagarpalika is hereby directed to send the proposal/claim of the petitioners seeking regularization to newly added respondent Nos. 6 and 7 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but not later than 31.01.2026.

(ii) The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are further directed to send all requisite material data of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment till date alongwith said proposal and meet with other requirements which may be sought by respondent Nos.6 and 7.

(iii) On the receipt of the such proposal/claim of the petitioners, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are hereby directed to consider the claim of each petitioner, objectively and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), and pass appropriate reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of the proposal from Nagarpalika, but not later than 30.04.2026, albeit decide the claim of petitioners in accordance with law.

15. In view of aforesaid and forgoing reasons, these petitions are partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. Direct service is permitted.

(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:23:52 IST 2025