Gujarat High Court

Trivedi Sureshbhai Pratapbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/11513/2014                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11513 of 2014
                                                        With
                                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
                                  In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11513 of 2014
                                                        With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3333 of 2022
                                                        With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7323 of 2014
                                                        With
                                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
                                   In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7323 of 2014

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                                                                             ✓
                      ==========================================================
                                         TRIVEDI SURESHBHAI PRATAPBHAI & ORS.
                                                        Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
                      MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - STATE
                      NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                      MS. SIMRAN PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for
                      the Respondent(s) No. 4
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                        Date : 25/09/2025
                                                    COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the

respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on

behalf of respective respondents.

1.2 All the mattes are having identical issues except Special

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 where the petitioners

were retired before passing of the Government Resolution

dated 22.01.2014, however, it is submitted by learned

advocate for the petitioners that at the relevant point of

time, when the decision was taken about responsibility of the

State Government, these petitioners of Special Civil

Application No. 11513 of 2014 were in service and thereafter,

they have retired. Therefore, considering this aspects, all the

petitions are considered together and decided by this common

judgment.

2.1 The present Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014

is filed for seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to admit this petition and to direct to be heard along with SCA No. 7323/2014 and to allow the same;

(b) to quash and set aside the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-

2014 as per Annexure-F and to hold and declare and direct that the petitioners who were employees of the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika stand absorbed in the service of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the said Hospital has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff, in the same manner and with the same benefits as were granted to the employees of the Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Nagarpalika on the said Hospitals being taken over by the State Government as per Annexures H Colly., I-Colly. and J Colly., respectively;

(c) to hold and declare and direct that the employees of the erstwhile Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika the present petitioners are entitled to the exactly similar treatment in the matter of their service conditions as was the treatment given to the employees of the erstwhile Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika w.e.f. 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff;

(d) as the PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay further operation of the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-2014 as per Annexure-F and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners employees of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble High Court;

(e) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"

2.2 The present Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014

is filed for seeking the following reliefs:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

"(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same;

(b) to quash and set aside the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-

c) to hold and declare and direct that the employees of the erstwhile Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika -the present petitioners are entitled to the exactly similar treatment in the matter of their service conditions as was the treatment given to the employees of the erstwhile Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika w.e.f. 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff;

(d) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay further operation of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-2014 as per Annexure-F and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners as the employees of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble High Court;

(e) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014

is almost identical to other captioned petition except Special

Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 whereby the petitioners

were retired before passing of the Government Resolution

dated 22.01.2014. Hence, facts are taken in nutshell from

Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014 as stated in the

memo of petition are as under:

3.1 It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that the

petitioners were appointed as employees in the hospital run

by Mahuva Nagarpalika, namely, Mahuva Municipal Medical

Unit. The said Hospital was originally under the State

Government and in the year 1952, it was handed over to

Mahuva Nagarpalika because of its sound economic conditions.

However, at present the economic condition of Mahuva

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Nagarpalika being not good and running of the Hospital

requires huge expenditure, the Mahuva Nagarpalika decided

to hand over the Hospital with all its infrastructures and

staff to the State Government by Resolution dated 15.01.2010.

The State Government granted the sanction for taking over

the said hospital with a view to developing the same as 200-

Bed Hospital and to give it the status of the District

Hospital by G.R. dated 14.09.2012, and by G.R. dtd. 30-4-

2013, State Government took over the Hospital w.e.f. 1-5-

2013, pending the decision for absorption of the staff in the

State Government. Arrangement for payment of salaries to

the staff was made by orders of the State Government and

Commissioner dated 4.6.2013 and 10.06.2013. Now the State

Government has issued G.R. dated 22-1-2014, inter alia, deciding that the existing 52 employees of the hospital will

be continued in the General Hospital Mahuva under the

State Government as if they are on deputation from Mahuva

Nagarpalika under their retirement, with the same pay and

the rules of service and discipline of Nagarpalika, but their

salaries and allowances shall be paid by the State

Government till they remain in service and the State

Government will not be responsible for their retirement

benefits. The said G.R. dated 22.01.2014 being clearly

contrary to the letter and spirit of the resolutions passed by

the Mahuva Nagarpalika for handing over the hospital to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

State Government with all its infrastructures and the staff,

the Nagarpalika has already made a representation dated

10.02.2014. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are

seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State

Government as the same is clearly contrary to the proclaimed

policy of the State Government to absorb the employees of

such hospitals in the service of the State Government, and it

is giving discriminatory treatment to the petitioners vis-à-vis

the exactly similarly situated employees of the other hospitals

of the other Nagarpalikas, which have been taken over by

the State Government, namely, the Hospitals of Veraval-Patan

Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam

Nagarpalika in as much as the concerned employees of the

said hospitals have been absorbed in the service of the State

Government with all the benefits which are available to the

employees of the State Government.

3.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition

that the hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika had employed not

only the present petitioners but several other persons were

also employed on daily-wage basis and they were not been

paid their salaries after the said hospital was taken over by

the State Government w.e.f. 01.05.2013 and therefore 29 such

daily-wage employees have approached this Hon'ble Court by

way of SCA No. 3434 of 2013 and they had preferred Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Application (for interim relief) No. 1100 of 2014 in the said

petition for a direction for payment of their salaries. In the

said order this Hon'ble Court has clearly held as under in

paragraph-14

"14 It is not in doubt that the terms and conditions governing the administration of the Hospital are in the hands of the State Government as the Hospital has been taken over from the Mahuva Nagarpalika. Mahuva Nagarpalika no longer has any responsibility in this regard as the State Government has taken over the Hospital with staff and infrastructure from the Municipality with no prior conditions."

It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition

that for the same reasons and in view of what has been

elaborately stated and submitted in the memo of petition, the

present petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in

this petition.

4. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the

petitioners, Mr. Parth Patel, learned AGP for the respondent-

State and Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

No.4.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

5.1 Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners

has strongly submitted that the petitioners should get equal

treatment like the employees of Veraval-Patan Municipality as

well as Siddhpur Nagarpalika whereby the Government has

observed the employees of the municipality. He has referred

to the pleadings and has submitted that the Mahuva

Municipal Medical Unit (Hospital) was originally owned by

State Government. Thereafter, in the year 1952, it was

handed over to Mahuva Nagarpalika in view of its sound

economic condition. He has submitted that on 29.12.2009 and

thereafter on 15.01.2010, the medical board and General Body

of Mahuva Nagarpalika passed resolution for ending over the

hospital to State Government along with all properties, land,

buildings, Staffs, instruments, etc. He has submitted that on

14.09.2012, the State Government issued G.R. granting

sanction for taking over the said hospital. He has further

submitted that on 30.04.2013, the State Government issued

another GR dated 30.04.2013 for taking over hospital w.e.f.

01.05.2013 and provisionally passed order for treating the

staff of hospital as on deputation, pending the decision for

their absorption in the State Government subject to prevalent

rules. He has submitted that on 22.01.2014, the State

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Government issued G.R. dated 22.01.2014, inter alia, deciding

that 52 employees of hospital will be continued in the

General Hospital Mahuva under State Government as if they

are on deputation from Nagarpalika until their retirement,

with the same pay, but their salaries shall be paid by the

State Government till they remain in service and State

Government will not be responsible for their retirement

benefit. He has submitted that thereafter, tepresentation was

made by Mahuva Nagarpalika for correcting the conditions

mentioned in G.R. 22.01.2014 with respect to the payment of

retrial benefits by State Government and, therefore, he has

submitted that by way of these petitions, the petitioners are

challenging the action of State Government by treating them

on deputation to the government hospital from Mahuva

Nagarpalika until they retire and with the same pay and

service rules as of Nagarpalika and denying the retrial

benefit.

5.2 By referring to the documents annexed with the

petitioner, he has further submitted that similarly situated

employees of other hospital that are Verval-Patan joint

nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika, Viramgam Nagarpalika,

etc., which are taken over by the State Government, are

absorbed in the service by the State Government with all the

benefits which are available to the employees of the State

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Government. He has further submitted that all the employees

of these hospitals were absorbed in state government and

their pay fixations were accordingly made and continuity of

service was granted from their initial date of joining service

in the hospital of Nagarpalika for the purpose of pensionary

benefits. He has further submitted that the entire staff of

hospital along with hospital comes under the state

government and the staff would be now governed by the

service rules as applicable to the employees of the state.

Lastly, he has submitted that in Special Civil Application No.

11513 of 2014, the employees were retired before the G.R.

dated 22.01.2014 but they were in service when the State

Government issued G.R. dated 14.09.2012 granting sanction

for taking over the said hospital and, therefore, they are also

entitled to get the same benefits as other employees will get.

He has also submitted that the respondent-authority being a

welfare state cannot take such hyper-technical view of the

matter by refusing the benefits of such employees who are

retired prior to G.R. of the year 2014 on such flimsy ground.

5.3 Furthermore, he has submitted that some other daily

wagers were also employed and they were not paid salary

after the said hospital was taken by the State Government

and, therefore, 29 daily wagers filed SCA No. 3434 of 2013

and they preferred C.A. No. 1100 of 2014 in said petition for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

interim relief for direction for payment of their salaries and

which was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. He has submitted

that G.R. dated 26.02.2014 was issued and manpower of 125

persons were sanctioned and in that G.R., it was stated that

existing 52 employees shall be confined as if they are on

deputation until their retirement and the remaining 73 posts

shall be filled up as per the rules and regulations of State

Government. He has submitted that such action of the State-

authority of absorbing the present petitioners is unfair,

irrational and arbitrary and amounts to discriminatory

treatment given to the similarly situated employees and,

therefore, he has submitted that the present petition is

required to be allowed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

STATE:-

6.1 Per contra, Mr. Parth Patel, learned AGP for the

respondent-State has argued the matter in detail and after

conclusion of argument, he has submitted the written

submissions. He has submitted that the State Government

vide Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014 took a decision

to continue the services of total 52 employees of Mahuva

Nagarpalika on deputation, whereby the State will be solely

responsible for salaries and allowances of the employees as

per Clause (5), while the retiral benefits will be borne by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Nagarpalika as per Clause (6). He has further submitted that

the State Government is not responsible for pensionary

benefits because even after the deputation, the Petitioners are

still considered to be the employees of their parent

organisation i.e., Mahuva Nagarpalika and the said

deputation does not result into a recruitment in its true

significance, and therefore, the petitioners are to be continued

as members of their parent service i.e., Nagarpalika. He has

further submitted that they are to be treated as employees of

Nagarpalika for all purposes because deputation does not

alter the employment status: employees will continue to

belong to their parent organization. He has further submitted

that the petitioners were initially appointed by the Mahuva

Nagarpalika and were subject to their recruitment rules. He

has further submitted that they had never undergone any

recruitment process of the State Government before being

appointed in the Nagarpalika. He has further submitted that

on perusing their service records, it was found that they

were not possessing required educational qualifications, age,

experience, etc. required for the district level hospital as per

the recruitment rules and, therefore, the employees were

taken on deputation and it was not possible to absorb them

in State services. He has further submitted that in fact, their

services were protected by the State by allowing them to

continue on same salary. He has further submitted that in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

the case of Veraval-Patan Nagarpalika whereby State had

taken over the hospital by Government Resolution dated

18.12.1996, it was clearly mentioned in para 5.2 to 5.4 of

that resolution that the employees to be absorbed must be

possessing the required educational qualifications, age,

experience, etc. as per the recruitment rules and he shall be

paid minimum salary of the pay scale of the post and

further, their services shall be treated as new service from

date of joining state services. Thus, those employees therein

were absorbed after it was found that they had qualifications.

6.2 He has further submitted that the present petitioners

cannot claim absorption in the State services because they

were never appointed by the State. The object of the State

was to improve the medical facilities being provided by the

said hospital and with a view to see that the hospital's

infrastructure gets improved in the larger public interest

without any break, the staff of Nagarpalika was deputed,

giving them the same salary as was paid by the

Nagarpalika. He has further submitted that petitioners

herein, at the time of their initial appointment in the

Nagarpalika, were well aware that the Nagarpalika does not

have policy of granting pension, but when the decision of

taking them on deputation was taken by the State

Government, they challenged the said decision claiming

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

absorption because they were in knowledge of the fact that

they will receive the pensionary benefits if they get absorbed.

He has further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that

most of the petitioners were on the verge of retirement when

the decision vide impugned Government Resolution dated

22.01.2014 was taken. Therefore, such claim which is raised

by the petitioners is absolutely impermissible and deserves to

be rejected.

6.3 He has further submitted that deputation and

absorption are part of policy decision of the State

Government and, therefore, it does not create any vested

right in favour of the petitioners. He has further submitted

that so far as the cases of other Nagarpalikas are concerned,

it is not necessary that once the State has taken a decision

for a particular case, the same should be followed for all

times to come, more particularly, when the issue involves

policy decision. He has further submitted that it varies from

time to time in each case depending upon the financial

implications on the State. He has further submitted that in

the present case, huge financial burden will be cast upon the

State for long time. He has further submitted that if the

petitions are allowed because pension is not one time

payment but monthly expenditure, there is continuous liability

in future towards pensionary benefits.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

6.4 Lastly, in support of his submissions, he has relied on

following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

(i) Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (5)

SCC 362, relevant para is para 6.

(ii) Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India

reported in 2012 (7) SCC 757, relevant para is para

6.5 In light of the above submissions, he has submitted

that the present petitions are required to be dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

NAGARPALIKA:-

7. Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the respondent

No.4-Nagarpalika has also supported the submissions made at

the bar by learned AGP and has also filed written

submission, which is as under:

1. The petitioners have sought benefit of retiral benefits

of gratuity, pension, commuted pension from

respondents, more particularly respondent no.1 to 3.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

Therefore, there is no direct prayer against respondent

no.4 Nagar Palika.

2. Respondent no.4 Nagar Palika is not paying pension

to any of its employees and the workers of the Nagar

Palika are only entitled to gratuity and provident fund.

3. All such workers represented by petitioner are

working under the State Government and salary is

being paid by the State Government and therefore, the

respondent no.4 cannot be made liable to pay pension

or any other such benefits.

4. The State Government is paying salary and retiral

benefits as per 7th Pay Commission, whereas the

employees of respondent no.4 Nagar Palika are being

paid salary and retiral benefits as per 6th pay

Commission. In such circumstances, if this Hon'ble

Court directs the Nagar Palika to pay any such benefit,

the same would result into discrimination between the

employees of Nagar Palika and the employees of the

hospital.

5. It is an admitted fact that the Nagar Palika is

facing huge financial crunch and therefore, the hospital

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

was taken out by the State in the year 2013. The

Nagar Palika has in fact taken a loan of Rs. 5.52

Crores from the State Government which is yet to be

repaid. No such retiral benefits have been paid by the

Nagar Palika to its employees since last 5 years

because of financial crunch. As on today, the

establishment expenditure is beyond 48% and therefore

also, the Nagar Palika by way of order dated 16.7.2019

had withdrawn its resolution granting benefits of 6th

Pay Commission to its employees.

6. The State Government has taken over the

administration of hospital w.e.f. 1.5.2013 and therefore,

the State Government is solely liable to pay 100% of

the benefits to the petitioners, if any.

7. In fact, the Nagar Palika addressed a letter dated

10.2.2014 (Annex-G of Special Civil Application No.

11513 of 2014) to Additional Director, Health

Department stating that at the time when Nagar Palika

was handling hospital, even at that time, the State

Government was giving the benefits to the employees.

Therefore, after the hospital is taken over by the State

Government in the year 2013, the Nagar Palika is not

responsible to give such benefits to its employees,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

otherwise, the establishment expenditure would increase

exponentially.

8. By way of order dated 4.2.2014 passed in Civil

Application No. 1100 of 2014 in Special Civil

Application No. 3434 of 2013, this Hon'ble Court has

held that it is not in doubt that the terms and

conditions governing the administration of the hospital

are in the hands of the State Government as the

hospital has been taken over from Mahuva Nagar

Palika. Mahuva Nagar Palika no longer has any

responsibility in this regard as the State Government

has taken over the hospital with staff and infrastructure

from the municipality with no prior conditions.

9. Furthermore, the Government Resolution dated

13.1.2021 (by which the Nagar Palika was to pay 25%

of such expenditure) has been challenged by way of

Special Civil Application No. 20235 of 2023 and the

same is pending adjudication.

7.2 In view of the above, she has prayed to dismiss this

petition.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

8.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar

by the respective parties. I have also considered the fact that

the petitioners are serving in Mahuva Municipality since the

years together and the petitioners were on the verge of

retirement when they were considered on the deputation by

the State Authority. In Special Civil Application No. 11513 of

2014, the petitioners were retired before passing of the

Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014, but they were in

service in the year 2012, when the State has taken decision

to take over the management of the hospital. It also

transpires from the record and more particularly from the

pleadings of the parties that similarly situated persons, who

are having requisite qualifications, are absorbed in the State

Government; and in the present case, the State has not

absorbed the petitioners either because they are not

possessing requisite educational qualification or age, etc.,

which are not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of

the State Government. It also transpires that the facts of the

present case are required to be viewed differently from the

other Nagarpalika as in the case of Veraval-patan

Nagarpalika, there is specific clause that the persons, who

are having requisite qualification as per recruitment rules of

the state government, will be absorbed in the State

Government.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

8.2 It is not in dispute that at the time of appointment,

the petitioners were appointed by Nagarpalika and selected

by the Nagarpalika and they were serving with the

Nagarpalika for the years together. The petitioners were in

knowledge that Municipality does not have any policy for the

granting of pension. Merely because State had decided to

take the services with the Nagarpalika and to give the

appointment or to take services on deputation or for the

purpose of absorption, it is required to be considered by the

State in view of the policy of the State and prevalent Rules

and GRs. In the present case, it cannot be said that State

had not acted in consonance with its policy. Such interest of

the petitioners were protected by considering their cases on

deputation and to that extent, they are getting salary which

they were getting as employees of the Nagarpalika.

Furthermore, it is admitted position that Mahuva

Municipality has no policy about granting of pension and,

therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioners cannot claim

for benefit from the State Government merely because the

State has taken over the management of the hospital.

8.3 It also required to be considered that when the State

has made specific provision in the G.R. of the year 2014

regarding the services of the petitioners on deputation, now

the petitioners cannot compel the State to absorb them

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

merely because for some of Nagarpalika, State Government

has taken decision to absorb the employees. Even the

decision is required to be taken by the State by considering

the overall situation, financial implication and also

considering the prevalent policy at the relevant point of time

and, therefore, while deciding such issue, this Court may not

exercise the powers of judicial review when there is the issue

of policy involved in the matter. In the present case, I am of

the opinion that the said challenge of the petitioners is

arising from the policy decision by the State Government

and, therefore, on the scrutiny of the materials available on

the record and arguments of the rival parties, I am of the

opinion that this is not a fit case that it can be said that

there is any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India in any manner and also it cannot be

said that there is any discrimination among the equally

situated persons.

8.4. Now, it is fruitful to refer the decisions relied upon by

the learned advocate for the respondent-State, which reads

thus:

(i) Kunal Nanda (supra), relevant para is para 6, which is as

under:

[

"6. On the legal submissions made also there are no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad vs M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Others [1999 (8) SCC 381] is inappropriate since, the consideration therein was in the light of statutory rules for absorption and the scope of those rules. The claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree need mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the respondent department that the absorption of a deputationist being one against the direct quota, the possession of basic educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a must and essential and that there could no comparison of the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on promotion of a candidate who is already in service in that department is well merited and deserves to be sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the said claim."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

(ii) Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India reported in

2012 (7) SCC 757, relevant para is para 11, which is as

under:

"11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant was not a case of transfer on deputation but was a case of appointment on deputation after following all due procedures for appointment and selection. In the absence of any illegality in selection, it was not open to the respondents to cancel the offer of appointment. Such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

CONCLUSION:

8.5 Considering the abovementioned position and considering

the well settled position of law that powers of judicial review

is very limited with this Court in such matters. It cannot be

said that great prejudice is caused to the present petitioners

by considering their services on deputation. Merely because in

cases of other Municipality, the State Government has

considered the same and more particularly when it is a clear

case put forward by the State Government that the

petitioners are not having requisite educational qualification,

age, etc., as required for the government rules and

considering the fact that the state has not taken any part

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

undefined

when the petitioners were recruited in service of the

Nagarpalika, it cannot be said that it is obligatory on the

part of the State Authority to absorb them in the

establishment and, therefore, I found no merit in the present

petitions and, therefore, the present petitions are required to

be dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere by

exercising my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and, therefore, the present petitions are

found meritless and are required to be dismissed and are

hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected Civil

Applications are disposed of accordingly.