[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Indumatiben Khanabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10008 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
INDUMATIBEN KHANABHAI SOLANKI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR RASESH H PARIKH for the Petitioners.
MR HEMANG H PARIKH for the Petitioners.
MR CP CHAMPANERI for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Leave to amend the prayer clause.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Rasesh Parikh
submitted that the issue involved in this petition is squarely
covered by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in respect of identically situated persons working with
the same District Panchayat and thereafter confirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench and thereafter implemented by the State
Government as well as the District Panchayat and, therefore,
considering the above aspects, the present petition may be taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
up finally. Learned AGP Mr. Davda as well as learned advocate Mr.
Champaneri appearing for respective respondents could not
dispute the aforesaid position and hence, the matter was taken up
for final hearing today itself.
3. RULE. Mr. Aditya Davda, learned Assistant
Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. C. P. Champaneri waives
service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4.
4. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the following reliefs :-
"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ,
order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or
any other any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondents to regularize
the services of the present petitioners on the post of
female health workers at their District Panchayat,
Anand on the same terms and conditions as meted
out to with the other Female Health Worker who
have been regularized by Respondent No.3 in their
order dated 13.1.2021 with all consequential and
incidental benefits including Higher Pay Scale and
be pleased to hold that they are not required to
undergo the process of selection by applying for the
post of female health workers in the interest of
justice;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
B. During the admission, pendency and
final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS
may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their
servants and agents from terminating the services
of the petitioners;"
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were
appointed as Female Health Workers in the year 1997 by Kheda
District Panchayat and thereafter, on account of district
bifurcation, the petitioners are working with Anand District
Panchayat. Both the petitioners are working in different Talukas
and at the time of their appointment, they were unmarried and
upon getting married, they got their names corrected in the service
book. The petitioners state that though the petitioners are serving
since 1997, their services are not regularized. It is the case of the
petitioners that similarly situated employees of the same District
Panchayat i.e. Sangitaben Vasudevbhai Patel and others preferred
Special Civil Application No.8644 of 2012 before this Court
wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.12.2019 allowed the petition and directed the respondents to
confer the benefits as granted the Multi Purpose Health Worker of
other Districts and to regularize their services from their initial
date of appointments.
4. The aforesaid decision was carried in appel by the
District Development Officer by way of Letters Patent Appeal
No.1016 of 2021 with Civil Application (For stay) No.1 of 2021.
However, the Division Bench vide order dated 16.11.2021
dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.8644 of 2012 in the case of Sangitaben Vasudevbhai
Patel and others. Thereafter, the said order was implemented and
the services of the identically situated persons were regularized.
5. Mr. Rasesh Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners
herein are identically situated persons, they are squarely covered
by the decision rendered vide order dated 18.12.2019 in the case of
similarly situated employees of the same District Panchayat i.e.
Sangitaben Vasudevbhai Patel and others, Special Civil Application
No.8644 of 2012, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench
vide order dated 16.11.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of
2021 and thereafter, the said order was implemented by the State
Government as well as Anand District Panchayat and, therefore,
the services of the petitioners be regularized.
No other submissions were made by Mr. Rasesh Parikh,
learned advocate for the petitioners.
6. Mr. Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 as well as Mr. C. P.
Champaneri, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and
4, though vehemently opposed the petition, could not dispute the
aforesaid factual aspect about the nature of litigation referred to in
the foregoing paragraphs which has been implemented as well by
the State Government as well as Anand District Panchayat. Even
learned advocate Mr. Champaneri also could not dispute the fact
that there is any factual difference between the facts of the
petitioners as well as the facts of the employees of the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
District Panchayat i.e. Sangitaben Vasudevbhai Patel and others.
They, therefore, submitted that appropriate orders be passed.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that in an identical set of facts in respect of same
District Panchayat, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 18.12.2019 rendered in the case of Sangitaben Vasudevbhai
Patel and others in Special Civil Application No.8644 of 2012
(Supra), observed in paragraphs 6 to 10 as under :-
"[6.0] In the present case, the petitioners are
claiming the regularization on their services on the
posts of Female Health Worker. The facts, which
are established are that all the petitioners were
appointed by the District Panchayats on the post of
Female Health Workers between the year 1992 to
1997 and they are also conferred the regular pay
scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The appointment letters
reveal that they have appointed on fixed basis on
the conditions incorporated therein, wherein,
condition No.19 specifically states that they have to
undergo regular recruitment process, undertaken
by the Selection Committee and have to clear the
recruitment process. It is further mentioned in the
condition No. 2 that they will be relieved from the
services on availability of regularly selected
candidates appointed by the Selection Committee.
After they were appointed, the respondent authority
did not undertake the regular recruitment process
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
till the year 2011 and the petitioners were asked to
appear in the process. The passage of time, few of
the Female Heath Workers have became overage as
they are unable to undertake recruitment process.
In a similar set of facts in cases of Multi Purpose
Health Workers (Male), the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the judgement dated 10.08.2016
passed in Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011
had directed to consider the case of the petitioners
for regularization of such Multi Purpose Health
Workers (Male). The facts incorporated in the
judgment reveals that some of the employee had
become overage and also unable to complete in the
recruitment process, were denied benefits of
regularization. This Court after survey of various
judgment of the Apex Court ordered regularization
of Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male). It is an
undisputed fact that the aforesaid judgment has
been implemented.
[7.0] Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State on
instruction has fairly considered that the Multi
Purpose Health Worker (Male) of Rajkot, Valsad,
Sabarkantha, Valsad have been conferred the
benefits of regularization as per the direction issued
by this Court. Thus, the present petitioners who are
working as Female Health Worker cannot be
discriminated as in similar set of facts, the Multi
Purpose Heath Worker (Male) of other districts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
have been regularized by the State Government by
passing various resolutions. The appointment
orders of the present petitioners are also reveal
that they are appointed on a fixed basis and have
also been conferred the regular pay scale.
[8.0] In the present case, the appointment
orders reveal that they were appointed with a
condition that they have to undergo the regular
recruitment process till the regularly selected
candidates are not available, whereas the
appointments of Female Health Workers, on which,
reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw are entirely different. Since they were
appointed on 11 months contract. Thus, the
decision cited by him will not apply to the present
petitioners.
[9.0] In the present case, the respondent
authorities have initiated the regular recruitment
process in the year 2011 i.e. after the passage of
almost 14 years. The Coordinate Bench in the
judgment dated 10.08.2016 after examining all
these aspects including the aspect of finding in the
departmental examination had directed the
respondent-State to regularize the services of such
Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) and since the
State Government in its wisdom has implemented
the judgment of this Court in the case of Mutli
Purpose Health Worker (Male), the Female Health
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Worker, who are similarly situated, cannot be
denied the benefits of regularization even if they
have not cleared the examination.
[10.0] In this view of the matter, the writ
petition succeeds. The respondents are hereby
directed to confer the benefits as granted the Multi
Purpose Health Worker of other districts and to
regularize their services from their initial date of
appointments. Rule is made absolute."
8. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated
16.11.2021 while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of
2021 preferred by the Kheda District Panchayat has observed in
paragraphs 5 to 8 as under :-
"[5] That the Learned Single Judge of this
Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2016 in Special
Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 after examining
various aspects in a similar case had directed the
Respondent State to regularize the services of Multi
Purpose Health Workers (Male) serving at Rajkot,
Valsad and Sabarkantha districts. It is fairly
conceded before the Learned Single Judge as well as
this Court that the said judgment of the Learned
Single Judge regularizing similarly situated persons
has been accepted and also implemented. In the
premises, this Court finds that the Learned Single
Judge has rightly granted the benefits of
regularization to the private Respondents - Writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Petitioners relying upon the same. Even the Learned
Advocate for the Appellant could not dispute that
similarly situated persons had been regularized in
other districts of the State.
[6] It is further submitted by the Learned
Advocate for the Appellant that Respondents - Writ
Petitioners had also preferred a Contempt Petition
seeking implementation of the impugned order
herein and that pursuant to the orders passed in the
said Contempt Petition, the Respondents - Writ
Petitioners have been regularized with the condition
that they will have to further undergo training for
improving their soft-skills for Computer Applications
vide order dated 12.10.2021.
[7] In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned order
passed by the Learned Single Judge cannot be
faulted with and accordingly, the present Letters
Patent Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.
[8] In view of the order passed in main
matter, Civil Application for stay does not survive
and stands dismissed accordingly."
9. In view of the above observation and as the facts of the
petitioners herein is squarely covered, which could not be disputed
by learned AGP Mr. Davda as well as learned advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10008/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Champaneri, the present petition is required to be allowed and the
same stands allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to
confer the benefits to the petitioners herein as granted to the
identically situated employees vide order dated 18.12.2019 in the
case of Sangitaben Vasudevbhai Patel and others in Special Civil
Application No.8644 of 2012 (Supra). Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
