[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... vs Mahesh Bapurao Bujrang on 26 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8907
1 WP 14357-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14357 OF 2018
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli
(deleted as per Court's orders 28.06.2019
and 04.09.2019)
2. The President,
District Rural Development Agency,
Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Manesh s/o. Bapurao Bujrang
Age : 37 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. : Shashtrinagar, Jawla Bazar,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli ... RESPONDENT
...
Mr. Amarjeet V. Patil - Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande - Advocate for Respondent
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5446 OF 2019
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli
(deleted as per Court's orders 28.08.2019)
2. The President,
District Rural Development Agency,
Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Praful s/o. Gangadharrao Mupkalwar,
Age : 34 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. : 37, Om Shivam,
Yashwantnagar, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli ... RESPONDENT
...
2 WP 14357-2018.odt
Mr. Amarjeet V. Patil - Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. R.K. Ingole h/f. Mr. A.A. Pisal - Advocate for Respondent
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14357 of 2018 is aggrieved by
the order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 73 of 2015 by
the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, whereby the complaint filed
by the respondent came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to
make the complainant/respondent permanent on the post of Clerk-Typist,
as sanctioned in Government Resolution dated 17.03.2004, from the date
of presentation of the complaint i.e. 24.03.2015.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5446 of 2019 is aggrieved by the
order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 92 of 2015 by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, whereby the complaint filed by
the respondent came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to
make the complainant/respondent permanent on the post of Technical
Assistant, as sanctioned in Government Resolution dated 17.03.2004,
3 WP 14357-2018.odt
from the date of presentation of the complaint i.e. 21.04.2015.
4. As common issues arise in both petitions, they were heard together
with the consent of the parties.
5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Amarjeet Patil, for the petitioners submits
that the respondents were appointed on the post of
Clerk-Typist/Technical Assistant under the Backward Regions Grant Fund
Scheme (B.R.G.F.) on 09.04.2007 and were continued in service
thereafter. It is submitted that the respondents approached the Industrial
Court seeking permanency and consequential benefits. Learned Counsel
submits that since the respondents were appointed under a scheme, they
are not entitled to seek permanency. He further submits that the
appointments were not made against the regular establishment of the
Zilla Parishad and therefore the Industrial Court ought not to have
allowed the complaints. According to him, as the posts were scheme-
based and not part of the sanctioned establishment, the question of
granting permanency does not arise.
6. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane and
Ors. Vs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware and Ors. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 456,
submitting that the law laid down therein squarely applies to the present
case.
4 WP 14357-2018.odt
He further submits that the respondents were appointed under the
B.G.R.F. scheme and the posts were not duly sanctioned under the regular
establishment and this aspect was not properly considered by the
Industrial Court.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. R. K. Ingole for the respondent in
Writ Petition No. 5446 of 2019 and learned Counsel Mr. G. L. Deshpande
for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 14357 of 2018 support the orders
passed by the Industrial Court.
8. This issue has already been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the following judgments :
(A) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang
Sitaram Jadhav and others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Through its Dairy Manager and another, reported in
[(2020) 17 SCC 393] observed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14
as under:
"12. In view of the aforesaid facts as also the
legal pronouncements made subsequently, we
have no doubt that these appellants before us
would be entitled to the benefit of
regularisation and mere delay in preferring
the claim would not come in their way except
that the benefit of regularisation would arise
from the date the complaints were filed.
13. The finding of an unfair labour practice
by the Tribunal has in fact been confirmed by
the learned Single Judge in the present case
and the only two reasons for interference by
5 WP 14357-2018.odt
the Division Bench relating to Umadevi (3)
case have already been explained in the
aforesaid subsequent judgments.
14. We thus, direct the respondents to
regularise the appellants accordingly and the
necessary orders be issued within three
months from the date of the order. The
benefits which the appellants would be
entitled to should also be remitted to the
appellants within the same period from the
date of the complaints, though the earlier
period would be counted for the purpose of
calculation of benefits without the appellants
being monetarily entitled for that period."
(B) The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Shripal and
another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in (2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221) has observed in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 as
under:
"16. The High Court did acknowledge the
Employer's inability to justify these abrupt
terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-
engagement on daily wages with some
measure of parity in minimum pay.
Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still
uncertain status. While the High Court
recognized the importance of their work and
hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to
afford them continuity of service or
meaningful back wages commensurate with
the degree of statutory violation evident on
record.
17. In light of these considerations, the
Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant
6 WP 14357-2018.odt
Workmen stands in violation of the most basic
labour law principles. Once it is established
that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they
were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to
perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of
municipal budget and compliance with
recruitment rules merit consideration, such
concerns do not absolve the Employer of
statutory obligations or negate equitable
entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations
cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de
facto regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to
the extent they confine the Appellant
Workmen to future dally-wage engagement
without continuity or meaningful back wages,
is hereby set aside with the following
directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen's services, effected without
compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In
consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be
treated continuing in service from the date of
their termination, for all purposes, including
seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate
the Appellant Workmen In their respective
posts (or posts akin to the duties they
previously performed) within four weeks
from the date of this Judgment. Their entire
period of absence (from the date of
termination until actual reinstatement) shall
7 WP 14357-2018.odt
be counted for continuity of service and all
consequential benefits, such as seniority and
eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the
Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%
of the back wages from the date of their
discontinuation until their actual
reinstatement. The Respondent Employer
shall clear the aforesaid dues within three
months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for
regularizing the Appellant Workmen within
six months from the date of reinstatement,
duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties
permanent posts. In assessing regularization,
the Employer shall not impose educational or
procedural criteria retroactively if such
requirements were never applied to the
Appellant Workmen similarly situated regular
employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or
are require the Respondent Employer shall
expedite all necessary administrative
processes to ensure these longtime employees
are not indefinitely retained on daily wages
contrary to statutory equitable norms".
(C) Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dharam
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another , reported in
(2025 SCC Online 1735) observed in paragraph 17 to 20, as
under:
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary
to recall that the State (here referring to both
the Union and the State governments) is not a
8 WP 14357-2018.odt
mere market participant but a constitutional
employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work recurs
day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices.
The long-term extraction of regular labour
under temporary labels corrodes confidence in
public administration and offends the promise
of equal protection. Financial stringency
certainly has a place in public policy, but it is
not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason
and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that
"ad-hocism" thrives where administration is
opaque. The State Departments must
establishment registers, muster rolls and
outsourcing keep and produce accurate
arrangements, and they must explain, with
evidence, why they prefer precarious
engagement over sanctioned posts where the
work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked,
the record should show what alternatives were
considered, why similarly placed workers were
treated differently, and how the chosen course
aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
is not consequences of prolonged insecurity
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline
that should inform every decision affecting
those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed
service of the appellants, the admitted
perennial nature of their duties, and the
material Indicating vacancies and comparator
regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
9 WP 14357-2018.odt
i. Regularization and creation of
Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall
stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002,
the date on which the High Court directed a
fresh recommendation by the Commission and
a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning
posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the
State and the successor establishment (U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission)
shall create the or supernumerary posts in
corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or
equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without
any caveats preconditions. On regularization,
each appellant shall be placed at not less than
the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the
post, with protection of last-drawn wages if
higher and the appellants shall be entitled to
the subsequent increments in the pay scale as
per the pay grade. For seniority and
promotion, service shall count from the date of
regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full
difference between (a) the pay and admissible
allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-
level for the post from time to time, and (b)
the amounts actually paid, for the period from
24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization/retirement/death, as the case
may be. Amounts already paid under previous
interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net
arrears shall be released within three months
and if in default, the unpaid amount shall
carry compound interest at 6% per annum
from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization
with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
10 WP 14357-2018.odt
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension,
gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised
pension and terminal dues shall be paid within
three months of this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of
Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who
has died during pendency, his/her legal
representatives on record shall be paid the
arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of
death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (1),
within three months of this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary
of the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission or the prevalent competent
authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance
before this Court within four months of this
Judgment.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case,
orders of this Court in such matters have been
met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift
which further prolongs the insecurity for those
who have already laboured for years on daily
wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice
in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable
compliance. As a constitutional employer, the
State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
budget for lawful engagement, and implement
judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to
follow these obligations is not mere negligence
11 WP 14357-2018.odt
but rather it is a conscious method of denial
that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these
workers. The operative scheme we have set
here comprising of creation of supernumerary
posts, full regularization, subsequent financial
benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance,
is therefore a pathway designed to convert
rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that
fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but
obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India".
(D) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of
India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, has also
observed in paragraphs 9, 20 and 26 as under:
"9. On the other hand, the following primary
arguments have been advanced before us on
behalf of the Respondents:
(i)...............
(ii) Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert
that the appellants were not appointed against
any sanctioned posts. According to the
respondents, without sanctioned vacancies,
there can be no question of regularization or
absorption into the permanent workforce.
(iii)...............
(iv)...............
(v)...............
(vi)...............
20................ The said judgment sought to
prevent backdoor entries and illegal
appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments
were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and
where employees had served continuously
12 WP 14357-2018.odt
against the backdrop of sanctioned functions
for a considerable period, the need for a fair
and humane resolution becomes paramount
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished
service performing tasks inherently required
on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this
Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India,
(2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed "temporary" but has
performed the same duties as performed by
the regular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee.
The relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the
specific circumstances under which the
appellants were employed and have continued
their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based
on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews,
which distinguishes their case from the
appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between "irregular" and
"illegal" appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain
13 WP 14357-2018.odt
appointments even if were not made strictly in
accordance with the prescribed Rules and
Procedure, cannot be said to have been made
illegally if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointments such as conduct of
written examinations or interviews as in the
present case..."
26. ..........It categorically held that employees
in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should
be considered for regularization as a one-time
measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions
rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the
claims of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
Judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
against employees who have rendered
indispensable services over decades."
(E) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhola Nath Vs. The State
of Jharkhand and Ors. in 2026 INSC 99 has held in
paragraph Nos. 13.10 and 14 as follows :
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable
to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-
State's contention that the mere contractual
nomenclature of the appellants' engagement
14 WP 14357-2018.odt
denudes them of constitutional protection. The
State, having availed of the appellants' services
on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory
performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent
reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly
discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the
obligation of the State to act as a model
employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under
Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as
follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in
continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant
posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of
contractual engagement and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent
reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar
claims for regularization cannot override
constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of
contractual terms does not amount to waiver of
fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations
cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny. The State, as a model
employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or
mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to
justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner inconsistent with
15 WP 14357-2018.odt
fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct
the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the
services of all the appellants against the
sanctioned posts to which they were initially
appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all
consequential service benefits accruing from the
date of this judgment.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the posts in question were filled
by following due process of law. An advertisement was issued by the
Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development establishment and the
recruitment process was undertaken accordingly. The Government
Resolution dated 17.03.2004 sanctioned the staffing pattern. Though the
appointment orders described the employment as contractual, the
respondents have continued in service uninterruptedly. The scheme's
nomenclature changed from time to time, but the work and posts
continued to exist and remain in force.
10. Once the posts and staffing pattern were sanctioned and
advertised, and the respondents were selected through a proper
recruitment process and found eligible, their services were continued
from time to time. It is not the case of the petitioners that the
respondents were appointed dehors the recruitment process. The
advertisement itself clarifies that it was issued under the authority of the
Zilla Parishad, whose Chief Executive Officer functions as the ex-officio
16 WP 14357-2018.odt
Chairman of the District Rural Development Agency. Keeping the
respondents on contractual basis for years together appears to have
deprived them of regularisation benefits. Pursuant to the interim order
dated 06.03.2019 passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 14357 of
2018, this post has been kept vacant.
11. The Industrial Court framed issues regarding whether the
complainants proved engagement of the petitioners in unfair labour
practice. After considering the entire record, including dates of
appointment, Government Resolutions, staffing pattern, and evidence on
record, the Industrial Court held that contractual employment was
continued for years despite availability of sanctioned posts funded in the
ratio of 75% by the Central Government and 25% by the State
Government for the District Rural Development Agency. The Industrial
Court, upon evaluating the Government Resolution, recruitment process,
and staffing pattern, recorded a finding that the petitioners engaged in
unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971, as well as in violation of the Model Standing
Orders.
12. After considering the entire material on record, there is no dispute
that the respondents were appointed pursuant to a duly issued
advertisement and after undergoing a proper recruitment process. The
17 WP 14357-2018.odt
only ground raised is that the appointments were contractual. On that
basis alone, the petitioners cannot deny permanency when sanctioned
posts exist and the employees have rendered continuous service for years.
13. Upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by the
Industrial Court and the evidence on record and in view of the
aforementioned judgments, I find no reason to interfere with the
impugned orders. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
(iii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(iv) Rule stands discharged.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
