Gujarat High Court

Chaudhary Kamleshbhai Kalubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/17233/2017                                ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17233 of 2017

                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20997 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10020 of 2017
                      ==========================================================
                                       CHAUDHARY KAMLESHBHAI KALUBHAI & ORS.
                                                      Versus
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      DHWANI P LAKHANI(8222) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                      MILAN R MARUTI(7338) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                      MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                      MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
                      MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 - IN ALL THE
                      CAPTIONED MATTERS
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                        Date : 12/08/2025
                                                      COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the

respective respondent and learned AGP waives service of

notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents.

2. Since the issues involved in the present petitions

are almost identical in nature, hence, at the request of

learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters

are heard together and decided together and Special Civil

Application No. 17233 of 2017 is considered as lead

matter.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

3. The present lead petition i.e. Special Civil

Application No. 17233 of 2017 is filed by seeking the

following reliefs:

"(a) To admit and allow this petition;

(b) To hold and declare the engagement, by the respondent authorities, of the petitioners on fixed monthly pay on contractual basis, as opposed to the mandate of the Directive principles contained in Articles 39, 41, 42, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, as also in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(c) To hold and declare that, the resolution of the Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department of the Government of Gujarat dated 26-04-2017 (At Annexure-A) and subsequent communication of the Commissioner of the rural Development office dated 04/05-

05-2017 (At Annexure-A) is illegal, improper and bad in law and also contrary to the statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners and also contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of India.

(d) To direct the respondent authorities to ensure that the petitioners are paid minimum wages prevalent in the State;

(e) To issue a direction commanding the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

authorities to fix the pay of the petitioners and the same may be directed to be paid from the date on which it is made applicable in comparison with the applicable pay and allowances that are paid to the regular employees of the State Government whose work is identical in nature as that of the petitioners by holding that the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work;

(f) To direct the respondents to strictly comply with the provisions of law as is prevalent in the State in the case of petitioners for considering them as permanent and regular employee and for payment of benefits such as pay fixation, increment, leave, maternity benefit, provident fund, pension and such other benefits;

(g) To direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the petitioner's service till the existence of DRDA scheme and not to replace them with other temporary and contractual employees by removing the petitioners from their respective post;

(h) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents shall not terminate the services of any of the petitioner under the guise of their contractual employment getting over on a particular date, and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo in so far as the employment of the petitioners is concerned;

(i) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

petition, be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to comply with the statutory provisions of law more particularly with regard to service benefits such as pay fixation, increment, leave, maternity benefit, provident fund, pension and such other benefits;

(j) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the further implementation, execution and operation of the resolution of the Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department of the Government of Gujarat dated 26-04-2017 (At Annexure-A) and subsequent communication of the Commissioner of the rural Development office dated 04/05-05-2017 (At Annexure- A);

(k) Ad interim relief in terms of paragraph (h), (i) and (j) be granted;

(i) To pass any other appropriate and just order/s;"

4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties and learned AGP for the respondent - State in

the respective petitions.

5. It is pointed out that issue involved in the present

petition is now decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court passed in Special Civil Application 17474 of 2015

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

vide order dated 28.03.2027, relevant paragraphs of the

said order reads as under:

"52. For the foregoing reasons, the present group of petitions are partly allowed.

52.1 The prayer of the petitioners to regularise their contractual services and make them permanent on the establishment is rejected. Limited immunity that is made available to the petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their contractual employment and not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The petitioners shall be continued in the existing cadre as long as the said Scheme continues, but purely on contractual basis and such employment shall be coterminus with the scheme, subject to evaluation of their performance, service and disciplinary rules as may be made applicable to them. The respondent-State shall insist on periodical upgradation of knowledge, improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation.

52.2 The challenge to the Government Resolutions dated December 23, 2013 and August 28, 2014 and the consequential process of recruitment undertaken in the year 2014 pursuant to the public advertisement dated August 28, 2014, succeeds qua the petitioners only. Those petitioner who have qualified in the last examination of the year 2014 shall be continued on contractual employment without insistence on their fresh appointment by the respondent-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

State.

The respondent-authorities shall renew the petitioners' contract of service on the same terms and conditions as continued so far

52.3 Those petitioners who have cleared the examination and not qualified in the process of recruitment of the year 2014, shall not be discontinued, if already on contractual service pursuant to their selection through legally permissible mode in the years 2009 and 2011.

52.4 Those of the petitioners who have approached this Court after their termination on account of nonextension of their contractual employment, but otherwise given appointment after selection under the Rules/ on following public advertisement, shall be restored to continue on their original posts. This shall be considered as their contractual employment without any break.

52.5 It is being clarified that those appointments which have been made freshly pursuant to the aforementioned resolutions and process of selection under challenge in the year 2014, in no manner, shall be affected by this judgment.

52.6 It is being clarified that in absence of any policy of the State to grant permanency in any of the cadres at the District, Taluka or Gram Panchayat levels, the issue of the length of service of the petitioners deserves no adjudication.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

However, if any such policy in future is made by the State, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the contention of continuation and shall be entitled to raise the issue of the length of service from the date of their initial appointment. This Court has not concluded the said issue in the present group of petitions and has left the same for the petitioners to contend at an appropriate time in the future, if the occasion so arises.

52.7 As a parting note, it is being observed that this Court would fail in its duty if it does not act as a catalyst in the words of the Apex Court and draws the attention of the State Government that if may need to take a policy decision in respect of creating permanent establishment where contractual appointments have continued for more than a decade and its continuation is still felt by gearing up at all levels. Since it entails large financial implication, a marathon exercise is begging the attention of the State.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be, however, no order as to costs."

6. It is also pointed out that identical issue is also

decided by the Division Bench of this Court passed in

Letters Patent Appeal No.983 of 2017 vide order dated

24.04.2018, relevant paragraphs of the said judgment

read are paragraphs 5 to 9, which reads as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

"5. As against, learned advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that all the above aspects are considered by learned Single Judge in a detailed CAV Common Judgement in the context of Act 2005, various executive instructions contained therein and the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and Ors.

vs. Piara Singh and Ors., Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and other such decisions by referring to 4 levels namely State, District, Taluka and Village containing various posts and the qualification of individual writ petitioners with their work experience has given limited relief which do not require any interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned Asst. Government Pleader for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondents for the sake of convenience, we reproduced herein above the directions contained in para 52 of the order impugned, which also formed part of our oral order dated 19.2.2018 passed in this appeal.

7. Since the prayer to regularise the contractual service of the writ petitioners and to make them permanent on the establishment is rejected by learned Single Judge, limited benefit made available to them was direction to the authority to continue the contractual employment and that they are not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hoc basis. Further while passing such order learned Single Judge has taken care of existing educational qualifications and work experience of each of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

the employees and readiness on their part to undergo any kind of training so as to improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation.

8. The directions of above in nature issued by learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in consonance with law laid down by the Apex Court, to which, reference is made in the decisions and it is trite that nature of employment namely contractual on which employee is serving is not to be replaced by another set of employees with same terms and conditions.

9. Considering the object of the Act, 2005 namely to provide employment in rural area by the Central Government and substantial cost to be incurred for and administrative side namely payment of wages and salary is to be borne by the Central Government under Rule 22 and State Government is fastened with the liability with the cost of unemployed allowances payable under the scheme and only 1/4th of the material cost of the scheme including payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled workers subject to provisions of Schedule II, we find no substance in the challenge to the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge in this appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and in absence of merit it is dismissed."

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the

present captioned petitions are partly allowed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17233/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

8. The prayer of the petitioners in respective captioned

petitions to regularize their contractual services and

make them permanent on the establishment is rejected.

Limited immunity that is made available to the

petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their

contractual employment and not to be replaced by other

set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The