Gujarat High Court
Nandlal Arvindbhai Savaliya vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 776 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18176 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 776 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18176 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 777 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4139 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 777 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4139 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 778 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5995 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 778 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5995 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 779 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11519 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 779 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11519 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 793 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11650 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 793 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11650 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 794 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4917 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 794 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4917 of 2019
With
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by BHAVESH P. KATIRA(HC00176) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:16:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 795 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4275 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 795 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4275 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 796 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1051 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 796 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1051 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 797 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6133 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 797 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6133 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
3
==========================================================
NANDLAL ARVINDBHAI SAVALIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR RAJ TANNA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No.1-2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 03/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
1. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas seeks permission to delete the
private respondents. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The private
respondents stand deleted from the cause-title.
2. ADMIT. Mr.Raj Tanna, learned AGP appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2; and learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for
respondents No.3 to 7 waive service of notice of admission. With the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are
taken up for final hearing today.
3. The captioned group of LPAs is directed against the common oral
judgment dated 12.06.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application
No.13821 of 2015 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge
was pleased to reject the writ petitions filed by the appellants-original the
petitioners seeking regularization of their services and not to terminate
them from their employment, without following the procedure which is
being followed in case of permanent employees.
BRIEF FACTS :
4. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in
dispute which are as under:
4.1 It is the case of the appellants-original petitioners that the
respondent being Gujarat State Watershed Management Agency (for
short "GSWMA") is the Nodal Agency for the implementation of
Integrated Watershed Management Program (for short "IWMP") in the
State and its mandate includes planning for development of all the
watersheds of the State either directly or indirectly. The entire project is
undertaken under the aegis of the Central Government.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
4.2 The respondent is registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. The GSWMA is working at the State level, whereas the District
Watershed Development Unit (for short "DWDU") is working at the
District level. The organizational structure and various posts have been
described in its Human Resource Manual. The respondent notified the
recruitment process by way of different methods in its Human Resources
Manual which is duly produced at Annexure-A (page Nos.30 to 77),
wherein different methods of recruitment have been prescribed.
4.3 In the instant recruitment, the process envisaged as Method-2 was
applied. From among different methods, the Method-2 is most
competitive and transparent. The said Method-2 i.e. open advertisement
followed by Proficiency Test, the same figures at Page No.44. Paragraph
Nos.3.4.2 to 3.7 in the Human Resource Manual duly produced at
Annexure-A.
4.4 Thus, all the present appellants are appointed in a scheme of
Watershed Project initiated by the Central Government and being
implemented by the respective State Governments. Accordingly, they
were appointed in view of the Human Resources Manual issued by the
Gujarat Watershed Agency and that fact is not disputed by the appellant.
5. It appears that in the year 2014, apprehending termination, the
appellants approached this Court by way of filing petitions, in which the
respondents were directed to maintain status-quo. Accordingly, they have
continued for all these years. It is also noticed by us that despite the
project having been closed, in cases of some of the appellants, they were
accommodated in some other scheme on deputation, as the respondents
were facing with the status-quo order. We have also perused the
communication in this regard, wherein the respondents - authorities have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
clarified that such employees - appellants are accommodated in view of
the status-quo order and it is further clarified that appropriate application
may be filed before the Court seeking permission to terminate their
services. In the captioned writ petitions, it is noticed by us that various
Civil Applications for vacating the interim relief has been filed by the
State authorities; the same were also disposed of along with the captioned
writ petitions.
6. Learned Single Judge has refused to accept the prayers made in the
captioned writ petitions, which has given rise to the present group of
LPAs.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-EMPLOYEES :
7. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the appellants,
at the outset, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge may be set aside, as the learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate the fact that the appellants have been rendering their services
for more than 14 years by now, and hence, they are entitled for
regularization of their service. In the alternative, he has submitted that
since the projects initiated by the Central Government as well as the State
Government are still continued; the appellants may be accommodated in
other projects. In this regard, he has referred to Government Resolution
dated 22.04.2017, wherein the State Government, through its Panchayat
Rural and Housing Rural Department, in reference to various schemes
being five in number, which are known as "Panch Stambh Scheme" and
has submitted that the employees i.e. the present appellants, who are
working under the Watershed Scheme, can be accommodated in another
scheme. He has also referred to the Minutes of 15 th Governing Body
Meeting of GSWMA held on 02.11.2017 and submitted that as per the
aforesaid Minutes of Meeting, the employees, who have outstanding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
performance, can be accommodated in any other Rural Development
Scheme, looking to the availability of the position and based upon the
required qualification.
8. While referring to the latest data of the Watershed Projects in
Gujarat, learned advocate Mr.Vyas has submitted that the website of the
Commissioner of Rural Development indicates that there is another
project of WDC 2.0, which is on-going and the State Government is also
contemplating the WDC 3.0 Project relating to the Watershed Projects in
the State of Gujarat and hence, it is urged that the present appellants may
be accommodated in such projects. He has also referred to the orders
dated 07.02.2017 issued by the Commissioner of Rural Development
Agency pointing out that the other employees, who are working in the
Watershed Project are accommodated in another scheme. Reference is
also made by him to the order dated 01.03.2019, wherein the employees
have been accommodated in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MANREGA) Scheme. Thus, it is submitted
that as the appellants are serving since long and the respondents are in
need of their services, they may be restrained from terminating the
services and replacing them by the employees employed by the
outsourcing agency. In support of his submissions, learned advocate
Mr.Vyas has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 1034.
Thus, it is urged that the common judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge may be interfered with.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-AGENCY :
9. Opposing the aforementioned submissions, learned Additional
Advocate General Ms.Lavkumar with Mr.Tanna, learned AGP for
respondent no.1 - State has urged that the common judgment and order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with, as the
same is precisely passed looking to the nature of the appointment of the
appellants and also the Manual of the Gujarat State Watershed
Management Agency (GSWMA). It is submitted that all the appellants
were continued, by view of the interim order dated 22.03.2017 granted by
this Court of maintaining status-quo. It is also submitted that the
respondents were unable to terminate their services and the appellants
were accommodated, by deputation in other departments only because of
the operation of the stay in the writ petitions. It is submitted that all the
appellants were appointed on the fixed terms of 11 months as per the
provisions of the Manual and they had also entered into the contract. She
referred to the Terms & Conditions of the contract and also provisions of
the Manual.
10. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General
Ms.Lavkumar that it is in the absolute discretion of the respondents -
authorities either to continue a contractual employee or to accommodate
them in any other project. It is submitted that the appellants cannot assert,
as a matter of right, to be continued in other project on closure of the
Watershed Project, in which they are originally appointed. She has also
referred to the data of 6th Project and also the other project, which were
undertaken by the State Government as per the funds received from the
Central Government and accordingly, she has submitted that almost all
the Projects are closed and the appellants cannot assert their rights to be
continued in other projects or the on-going projects. She has also asserted
that the contentions raised by the appellants with regard to their
replacement by the outsourcing agency is also misconceived; as the
employees are directly appointed as per the provisions of the Manual and
their services are governed by such provision as well as the contractual
agreement between the GSWMA and the employees.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
11. Learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Lavkumar has also
referred to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge and
submitted that the learned Single Judge has also dealt with various
projects, which have been undertaken from 2009 to 2018 and
accordingly, after examination of the Rules (Manual), it has been held
that the appellants are not entitled for regularization of services. She has
urged that the present appeals may not be entertained and may be
dismissed at the admission stage.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
12. The established facts on record of the case are that all the present
appellants are appointed by GSWMA (the Agency), by way of contract of
11 months. Their appointments are governed by the Human Resource
Manual, 2011, issued by the governing body of the GSWMA. As the title
of the respondent would suggest that it is a Nodal Agency, which is
formed for implementation of Integrated Watershed Management
Programme (IWMP) in the State, to be noted that, 60% of funds are being
allocated by the Central Government and 40% by the State Government
for implementation of the project and out of which, the amount to be
spent in the ratio of 90% and 10% i.e. 90% for the project work and 10%
for the administrative expenses by the Agency.
13. Learned Single Judge has threadbare examined the rules of the
Manual. We have re-examined the same. The appointing authority, as per
Rule 2.2.1 of the Manual is the CEO. The recruitment of the employees is
to be undertaken on contractual basis, as per the provisions of Rule 3.1.2,
which falls under Chapter-3 and provisions of Rule 3.3.2. Rule 3.3.4
categorically mentions that the contract can be renewed on mutual
consent of the employer and the employee, with or without the break of
service.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
14. Accordingly, all the appellants entered into the contract with the
respondent-agency. One of such contracts is produced on record. There
are 16 conditions in the contract and all the appellants have accepted the
same. Thus, all the appellants were governed by the contract, in which
they have entered. Neither the manual; nor the contract anywhere
mentions of their service being regularized. It is pertinent to note that the
services of the appellants are contingent to the project, in which they are
employed. From the documents on record, it appears that only because
the respondents were facing status-quo order, they have been
accommodated and continued by sending them on deputation basis in
various other projects. The reliance placed by the appellants on the
Government Resolution dated 22.02.2017 mentioning five schemes under
the Gujarat Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development
Department cannot come to the rescue of the appellants. The same does
not in any manner mentions about the regularization of services nor it
does compel the GSWMA to accommodate any employee on completion
of the project to another project under the five schemes.
15. The reliance placed on the Minutes of the 15th Government Body of
GSWMA held on 02.12.2017 cannot give any legal right to the appellants
to continue in any other project or in the same project. It is in the
absolute discretion of the Agency, looking to the exigency of work and
also the outstanding performance of a particular employee. In wake of
any enabling provisions either in the Rules or in the Contract, this Court
cannot step into the shoes of the Agency and direct that the appellants are
either to be regularized in services or they have to be mandatorily
continued in other projects of the State Government. Learned Single
Judge, after referring to the array of judgments on the issue, has rejected
the writ petitions claiming regularization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
16. Reliance placed upon the decision in the case of Jaggo vs Union
Of India (supra) would not come to the rescue of the appellants as in
the present case, though it cannot be said that the appellants have been
appointed through backdoor entry; but their appointment is made as per
the provisions of the Manual issued by the respondent - Agency. The data
on record shows that the State Government has initiated various projects,
which are completed and accordingly on completion of such projects, the
employees cannot assert that they would be continued in another project.
17. In the present case, as mentioned hereinabove, the service of the
appellants has direct nexus with a particular project on which they are
appointed and on completion of the project, they cannot either assert their
right for being regularized or further being continued and it is only taken
on the sole discretion of the agency. This is the vital distinguishing
feature to that of Jaggo's case (supra).
18. In the case of State of Rajashthan vs. Kunji Raman, AIR 1997 SC
693, while examining an issue of payment of allowance raised by the
employees of Work Charge Establishment at par with the regular
establishment, has held thus:
"5. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether by treating
the work-charged employees of the Mahi Project differently from the
employees working on the regular establishment of P.W.D. and making the
RSR and the Project Rules, 1962 and 1975 inapplicable to them, the
Government can be said to have acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary
manner.
6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant
Singh v. Union of India broadly means an establishment of which the
expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, fare chargeable to
"works". The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-
charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the
estimated cost of the works. The work-charged employees are engaged on a
temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services
automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole
purpose of which they are employed. Thus, a work-charged establishment is
materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment."
19. While differentiating the nature of establishment, the Supreme
Court has held that the work-charged employees are engaged on a
temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a
specified work, and from the very nature of their employment, their
services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for
the sole purpose of which they are employed. Thus, adopting the same
analogy, in the present case, the appellants are appointed for a specific
purpose of execution of the project and on completion of such project,
they would have no right to continue, and their demand to be continued in
another project will be against the Rules and the interest of the Agency,
and will have direct bearing on the administrative cost, which is being
shared by the Central Government and the State Government. The
Manual/Rules does not provide any creation of regular posts, on which
the appellants can be regularized. Any direction of regularization will
amount to the amendment of Rules, which is in the absolute domain of
the Agency and the Central and State Governments. It is also pertinent to
note that the funds are allocated by both the Central and State
Governments hence, it is legally unfeasible to direct regularization of the
appellants on the posts, which may amount to conferring a regular pay
scale, which has direct nexus with the funds extended by the Central and
State Governments. In such hybrid system of governance, the Courts
cannot issue directions either to the Agency or to the Central or State
governments for regularization or to accommodate the employees after
completion of a particular project in which they are employed. The
exclusive authority and dominion on these subjects/benefits is on the
Central Government and the State Government, who have to work in sync
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
for extending the benefit of the Scheme/project to the public at large. The
Courts cannot direct the GSWMA to regularize or accommodate in wake
of the fact that GSWMA exists under the aegis of the Central and State
Governments. No exclusive direction can be issued to GSWMA either for
regularization or for accommodating the employees since it stems out of
the exertions of the Central and State Governments. The Courts cannot
step into the shoes of the framers of the Scheme or Project and compel
them to regularize the service of employees, who are specifically engaged
for implementation of the Project/Scheme. Such type of benevolent
Projects/Schemes are introduced for the benefit of public at large, and do
not derive any profit, and are carved and executed keeping in mind the
financial resources. All these facets are very vital for subsistence of the
Schemes. Hence, any direction of regularization of the appellants, which
has direct impact on the subsistence of the Scheme/Project and also on
the functioning of the Agency cannot be issued.
20. Learned Single Judge has meticulously endeavored to answer the
issue raised in the captioned writ petitions. We do not find any reason for
interference in the common impugned judgment and order. The appeals
also meet with the same fate and accordingly, the captioned LPAs are
dismissed. The connected civil applications are also dismissed.
21. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Vyas has urged this Court that
the status-quo, which has been continued during the pendency of the writ
petitions and as continued by the learned single judge may be further
continued for a period of 08 (eight) weeks.
22. It is noticed by us that the Civil Applications, which were filed for
vacating the interim-relief, remained undecided for these many years. We
are not inclined to extend the status-quo in view of the aforementioned
facts and in light of the nature of the employment of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/776/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
appellants. However, as previously clarified by us, the GSWMA has the
sole discretion either to continue the present appellants or to
accommodate them in any other project.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
***
Bhavesh-[PPS]*/SB 1-9
