[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vinodrai Gordhandas Agrawal vs Chief Officer - Porbandar Nagar Palika on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5477 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
VINODRAI GORDHANDAS AGRAWAL
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER - PORBANDAR NAGAR PALIKA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
Date : 10/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, under the instructions of her client, does not press
the relief as prayed in paragraph No. 11(A) of this petition,
whereby, the petitioner is not challenging the award dated
30.01.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Jamnagar in New
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
Reference (IT) No. 101 of 2012 (Old No.130 of 2001). Thus,
prayer made in paragraph No. 11 (A) stand deleted.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned
Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing.
4. Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
5. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(AA) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to
regularized the services of petitioners since he has completed 240 days
on the post of Sanitary Sub Inspector and give him all the benefits of the
post and also direct the respondents to pay the arrears with interest and
with continuity of service on the post of Sanitary Sub Inspector.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation
and execution of the order dtd. 30/01/2016 passed by the Industrial
Court, Jamnagar in Ref. (IT) No. 101/2012 qua the petitioner; and further
be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post
of Sanitary Sub-Inspector and not to terminate the services of the
petitioner;
(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed
fit by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice."
6. THE SHORT FACTS:
6.1. The petitioner was appointed as a sanitary inspector by the
respondent on 21.04.1997 and he was superannuated on
31.07.2017. Till the time of his superannuation, the petitioner's
service was not regularized by the respondent.
6.2. It appears that at the relevant point of time, in the year 2000,
along with the petitioner, there were other workmen/drivers
engaged by the respondent, who requested the respondent to
regularize their service. The record indicates that at the relevant
point of time, the petitioner, along with other workmen, had
approached the Labour Court seeking regularization benefit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
The respondent agreed to grant such benefit while the reference
was pending and attempted to reach an amicable resolution to
the issue. Accordingly, vide its resolution dated 30.07.2009, it
agreed to regularize the service of the petitioner, wherein also,
it has been stated that until the date of regularization, the
previous service of the petitioner will be calculated notionally
for purpose of granting regularization benefits. Consequently,
on 29.10.2009, the petitioner along with other workmen were
granted the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission. Later on, vide
its office order dated 12.07.2010, the respondent agreed to
grant benefit of regularization to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.10.2009.
6.3. The petitioner was also given an additional charge of Fire
Fighter Superintendent by the respondent vide office order
dated 01.11.2013.
6.4. The aforesaid reference pending before the Labour Court
concerned came to be decided by the Labour Court vide its
award dated 30.01.2016, whereby, the case of other workmen
has been considered and benefit of regularization has been
granted in their favour. So far as the case of petitioner is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
concerned, as petitioner was serving on the post of sanitary
inspector, he would not fall within the definition of 'workman'
as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thus, petitioner's
reference came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition.
7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
7.1. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit
that the petitioner was appointed as sanitary inspector by the
respondent in the year 1997 and he continued on such post
until his superannuation on 31.07.2017. It is submitted that the
petitioner served on the post of sanitary inspector for more
than 20 years and as per the settled legal position of law, the
petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of regularization.
7.2. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would further submit that the
respondent has accepted the request of the petitioner, vide its
order dated 12.07.2010, whereby, regularization of his service
was considered w.e.f. 01.10.2009. It is submitted that due to
intervention of the order of the Collector, the said order was
not implemented by the respondent. It is further submitted that
once the service of the petitioner came to be regularized by the
respondent and he was granted benefit of 6th Pay Commission,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
the respondent cannot be absolved from its liability to
regularize the service of petitioner.
7.3. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would further submit that so far
as the cases of other workmen, which came to be decided in
their favour by the Labour Court, the petitioner is also
similarly situated so far as serving for a long time with the
respondent is concerned and as such, petitioner is entitled to
receive same relief. It is submitted that as per the evidence
recorded before the Labour Court concerned, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner has served throughout since 1997 till
2017, whereby, the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of
regularization.
7.4. To buttress her arguments, Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would
rely upon the following decisions:
(i) Bhola Nath V/s. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129;
(ii) Jaggo V/s. Union of India and others, reported in AIR
2025 SC 296;
(iii) Dharam Singh and others V/s. State of U.P. and others,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
reported in AIR 2025 SC 3897;
(iv) Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India reported in
2026 LawSuit(SC) 156.
7.5. Making the above submissions, Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate
would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
8. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
8.1. Per contra, Mr. Devnani, learned Advocate would submit that
the petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification to be
appointed on the post of sanitary inspector and for such
reason, his service was not regularized by the respondent. It is
submitted that the order passed by the respondent on
12.07.2010 is already stayed by the Collector and thereby, no
benefit of regularization can be granted in favour of the
petitioner.
8.2. Mr. Devnani, learned Advocate, would further submit that
there is no absolute rule or proposition that a person who has
worked for more long time would automatically be entitled to
get benefit of regularization.
8.3. Making the above submissions, Mr. Devnani, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
Advocate, would request this Court to dismiss the present writ
petition.
9. No other and further submissions are being made.
ANALYSIS:
10. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and after perusal of pleadings and documents, which
are made available on record, and upon appreciation of
submissions of both sides, the following would emerge:
(i). The petitioner was appointed as sanitary inspector by the
respondent on 21.04.1997 and till the date of his
retirement on 31.07.2017, he continued on such post
without any break in service.
(ii). It is also not in dispute that the post of sanitary inspector
is a sanctioned post and as per the setup of the
respondent, as on 07.11.2005, two posts of sanitary
inspector were found vacant.
(iii). The petitioner along with other workmen-drivers made
representation on 11.09.2000 to grant them benefit of
regularization. Thereafter, they approached the Labour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
Court, Rajkot vide Reference (IT) No. 130 of 2001.
(iv). The respondent appears to have settled the dispute with
the petitioner and other workmen as passed resolution
dated 30.07.2009, whereby, it agreed to regularize the
service of the petitioner by granting notional benefits
from the date of appointment until the date of
regularization. The aforesaid decision of the respondent
appears to have been accepted by the petitioner.
(v). The petitioner was also granted the benefit of 6th Pay
Commission by the respondent vide its order dated
29.10.2009.
(vi). The respondent appears to have passed an order dated
12.07.2010, whereby, it has agreed to grant benefit of
regularization to the petitioner and other workmen w.e.f.
01.10.2009. Nonetheless, the said order appears to have
been stayed by the Collector.
(vii). The petitioner was also given an additional charge of
Fire Fighter Superintendent by respondent vide its order
dated 01.11.2013.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
(viii). The aforesaid reference came to be decided by the
Labour Court vide its order dated 30.01.2016, but so far
as the petitioner is concerned, as he was serving as
sanitary inspector, he would not fall within the definition
of 'workman', and therefore, his reference came to be
rejected. So far as the rest of the workmen are concerned,
the same was allowed, whereby, their services were
ordered to be regularized.
(ix). The respondent vide its order dated 02.03.2017
regularized the service of one Mr. Kantilal N. Dangar
who was serving as sanitary sub-inspector.
11. The aforesaid facts would clearly suggest that the petitioner
was appointed by the respondent as sanitary inspector in the
year 1997 and worked till his superannuation in the year 2017.
There is no dispute that the petitioner worked for more than 20
years on the post of sanitary inspector; rather, petitioner was
given an additional charge of Fire Fighter Superintendent by
the respondent. Even the similarly situated sanitary inspector
like petitioner namely Mr. Kantilal Dangar was regularized by
the respondent. These are self-sufficient reasons to consider the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
claim of petitioner for regularization.
12. The stance of the respondent before this Court that the
petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification to be
appointed on the post of sanitary inspector would pale into
insignificance as the petitioner was appointed none other than
by the respondent. It is not a case of respondent that due to not
possessing qualification, at any given point of time, petitioner
was either served with any show-cause notice or his service was
not found satisfactory by respondent. Rather, petitioner is
allowed to be superannuated from the post of sanitary
inspector. Thus, in view of the above, the respondent's feeble
attempt is untenable.
13. The fact remains that the respondent agreed to regularize the
service of the petitioner, along with others, in the year 2009.
Consequently, the necessary resolution/order came to be passed
by the respondent, whereby, w.e.f. 01.10.2009, such benefit
would have been granted in favour of the petitioner.
Nonetheless, it is also true that due to intervention of the
Collector concerned, the said order could not be implemented
by the respondent. At the same time, the Labour Court could
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
have granted benefits in favour of the petitioner as given to
others, but as the petitioner was not found to be a workman,
such relief was not granted in his favour.
14. Be that as it may, once it has come on record that the petitioner
has served as sanitary inspector without any break in service
for more than 20 years and service of other similarly situated
sanitary inspector came to be regularized by the respondent,
petitioner is also entitled to receive the benefit of
regularization.
15. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely upon the
recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan
Kumar (supra), wherein, it was observed and held thus:
"8. It is also material to note that subsequently in the case of
Raman Kumar v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of
2023], this Court referred to the adjudication in the Ravi
Verma (supra) and on 03.07.2023 directed regularization of
services of the appellants therein. This was for the reason
that the Income Tax Department could not have
discriminated in the matter of regularizing the services of
similarly situated employees.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
On the same analogy, we find that the present appellants
also being similarly situated, they cannot be discriminated
from the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals.
9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that the law laid
down by this Court in Jaggo (supra) supports the case of the
appellants in their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs 13,
20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:
"13. The claim by the respondents that these
were not regular posts lacks merit, as the
nature of the work performed by the appellants
was perennial and fundamental to the
functioning of the offices. The recurring nature
of these duties necessitates their classification
as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of
these same tasks to private agencies after the
appellants' termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set
of workers with another, further underscores
that the work in question was neither
temporary nor occasional.
20. It is well established that the decision in
Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
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 against the backdrop
of sanctioned functions for a considerable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
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 [Civil Appeal No. 4146 of 2023],
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
(supra) also distinguished between
"irregular" and "illegal" appointments
underscoring the importance of considering
certain 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..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants' engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal.
Courts must look beyond the surface labels and
consider the realities of employment : continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence
of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In
that light, refusing regularization simply because their
original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an
outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be
contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
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."
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that the
Tribunal was not justified in denying relief to the appellants by
relying upon the decision in Umadevi (supra). The High Court
also erred in affirming the decision of the Tribunal. The
appellants are entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this
Court in Ravi Verma (supra) as well as in Raman Kumar
(supra)."
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
15.1. Likewise, in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), after noticing
the previous case laws, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"[11] Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed
by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the
appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the
challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge
to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of
continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other
hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between
illegal appointments and irregular engagements and
does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious
employment where the work itself is permanent and the
State has failed, for years, to put its house in order.
Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India,
[2024 SCCOnLineSC 3826.] and in Shripal & Another v.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, [2025 SCCOnLineSC 221]. have
emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be
deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term
"ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial
of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over
extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply
with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from
Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
on Umadevi (supra) [In short, "the State"] to
contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules
providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself
distinguishes between appointments that are
"illegal" and those that are "irregular," the
latter being eligible for regularization if they
meet certain conditions. More importantly,
Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no
true contractor-based arrangement and a
consistent need for permanent horticultural
staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued
unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over
several Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 10
years, sometimes spanning more than a
decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not
produced in full, the Employer's failure to
furnish such records despite directions to do
so-allows an adverse inference under well-
established labour jurisprudence. Indian
labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-
wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent
in nature. Morally and legally, workers who
fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year
after year cannot be dismissed summarily as
dispensable, particularly in the absence of a
genuine contractor agreement. At this
juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the
broader critique of indefinite "temporary"
employment practices as done by a recent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India, 2006 4 SCC 1. in the following
paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in
this case, reflects a broader systemic issue
that adversely affects workers' rights and
job security. In the private sector, the rise of
the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices
have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and
justice, bear an even greater responsibility
to avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it
not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public
trust in governmental operations.
.......
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
functioning of an institution are often
labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical
tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without
cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of
the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass
the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects
them and their families to undue hardship,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.""
"[13] As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and
Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient
shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair
engagement practices where the work is inherently
perennial. The Commission's further contention that the
appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only
by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case.
That interim protection was granted precisely because of
the long history of engagement and the pendency of the
challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights
that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise
upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and applying
the ratio of the recent past decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to be regularized in his service on the post
of sanitary inspector. The Labour Court, vide its award dated
30.01.2016 while passing an order of regularization in favour of
other workmen concerned, granted the notional benefit from
the date of regularization till its date of award. The notional
benefit granted for said period due to poor financial condition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
of the respondent. I am also of the similar view that petitioner
should be granted notional benefit from date of regularization,
i.e., 01.10.2009 till 30.01.2016.
CONCLUSION:
17. In view of foregoing discussion and reasons, I am of the view
that the respondent shall have to pass the necessary order as
regards the regularization of the service of the petitioner by
granting notional benefits from the date of his regularization,
i.e., 01.10.2009 till 30.01.2016 and from 01.02.2016 till the date
of his superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2017, the petitioner is entitled
to receive actual benefit of regularization.
17.1. The respondent is hereby directed to pay the regular
salary/benefit to petitioner as available to the permanent
employee of the respondent from 01.02.2016 till 31.07.2017. All
other consequential benefits flowing from the order of
regularization shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner on
or before 31.05.2026.
18. In view of the foregoing, the respondent is hereby directed to
pass an appropriate order regularizing the service of the
petitioner and pay all the consequential benefits as aforesaid to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5477/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026
undefined
the petitioner on or before 31.05.2026, failing which the
petitioner shall be entitled to receive such benefits with 6%
interest from 01.06.2026 till its realization.
19. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
NILESH
