[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hiral Pravinchandra Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4747 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
HIRAL PRAVINCHANDRA DESAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JIT P PATEL(6994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS. FORUM SUKHDWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners,
Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2,
3 and 4 and learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala for
Respondent- State, at length.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Forum
Sukhdwala as also Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate, waive
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective
respondents.
3. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective
parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order and/or Direction by holding that
the petitioners are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of
their appointment and that the service of petitioners cannot be
terminated in any manner contrary to one by which services of a
permanent employee can be terminated and further be pleased to
regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of their
appointment and further be pleased to give all consequential
benefits, monetary and non-monetary inclusive of all consequential
benefits and arrears of pay as per regular pay scale and full back
wages.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents
not to terminate the services of the present petitioner by
maintaining status quo.
[D] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order and/or Direction directing
respondent authorities to accord and pay regular pay scale to the
petitioners and accord the same pay scale as accorded to clerks
and accountants i.e. Regular Class III Government Employees
engaged and appointed as clerks in Government and Grant-in-Aid
Schools..
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
[E] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, your lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents
to start paying the salaries as per the regular pay scale to the
petitioner at par and as is being paid to regular clerks and
Accountants working on class-III posts in similarly situated
establishments.
[F] Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and
expedient may be granted."
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE
5. As per the case of the petitioners, they are appointed by
respondent No.2 on contractual basis for 11 months on a fixed
pay. The relevant date of appointment / joining of the
respective petitioners are submitted at Annexure-B, which reads
as under:-
SR. EMPLOYEE NAME DIST QUALIFICA BIRTHDATE AGE JOINING
NO TION DATE
1 HIRAL VALSAD B.COM/ 28-07-1984 34 YEARS 18-03-2010
PRAVINCHANDRA TALLY
DESAI
2 SONAL CHHIBUBHAI VALSAD B.COM/ 23-02-1993 25 YEARS 29-02-2016
PATEL TALLY
3 NITESH BHAI VALSAD B.COM/ 01-06-1989 30 YEARS 12-02-2014
JIVUBHAI SAPTA TALLY
4 DIPAKKUMAR BANASKA B.COM/ 31-07-1991 27 YEARS 24-07-2014
BABULAL JOSHI NTHA TALLY
5 ROHITKUMAR BANASKA B.COM/ 14-01-1988 31 YEARS 28-07-2014
GANESHBHAI PATEL NTHA TALLY
6 TALAJI HARCHANDJI BANASKA B.C.A/ 16-01-1992 27 YEARS 10-09-2014
THAKOR NTHA B.ED/
SOFT(GCT)
7 ROHITJI VARSANGJI BANASKA B.C.A/B.ED 29-10-1992 26 YEARS 20-03-2015
THAKARDA NTHA
8 SANJAYKUMAR BANASKA B.COM/ 19-08-1991 27 YEARS 24-08-2012
DINESHBHAI NTHA COM
PRAJAPATI
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
9 SOBHANBHAI BANASKA B.A 01-02-1987 32 YEARS 09-10-2009
KANABHAI VANJARA NTHA
10 VIKKUMAR BANASKA B.A/COPA 23-02-1991 28 YEARS 01-07-2016
TARACHAND NTHA
THAKOR
11 DINESHKUMAR BANASKA 12 PASS 03-06-1987 32 YEARS 01-07-2016
KAPOORJI GOTATAR NTHA
12 VASANTBHAI BANASKA B.B.A/ 19-11-1993 25 YEARS 01-08-2017
KACHARABHAI NTHA M.B.A
SENMA
5.1 According to the petitioners, as per Government
Resolution dated 16.02.2006, upon completion of 5 years of
their services, they are required to pay regular pay/salary by
the respondents and also required to be regularized in service
from the date of their respective appointments.
5.2 Since the petitioners are engaged by respondents on
contractual terms and apprehending their termination from
service, they have approached this Court by way of this
petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-
6. Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners would
submit that appointment of all the petitioners is by way of
regular mode of selection and as per the Government
Resolution dated 16.02.2006, upon completion of 5 years of
their services; the respondents are required to pay them regular
salary. It is submitted that, merely because all petitioners are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
appointed on 11 months contract, which was renewed from
time to time till date, they cannot be deprived from receiving
the benefit of the aforesaid Resolution, which is applicable to
respondent No.2.
6.1 Mr. Patel, learned advocate would further submit that
appointment of the petitioners as non-teaching is against the
sanctioned vacant posts, thereby, services of petitioners require
to be regularized by respondents, upon successfully completion
of 5 years of their contractual services. It is submitted that in
recent past also, Government, vide its Resolution dated
04.03.2024, sanctioned 67 posts, to be filled by the
respondents, by applying the aforesaid Government Resolution
dated 16.02.2026. This itself shows that though the
appointment of all petitioners is on a fixed wage for 11
months and continued thereafter, which would be governed by
aforesaid resolution.
6.2 Mr. Patel, learned advocate would further submit that, as
per the settled position of law, benefit of regularization
requires to be granted to the contractual employees who are
working since long and having not done so, the respondents
have violated the fundamental right of the petitioners to
receive regular service benefits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
6.3 To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the
following decisions;
I. Shaileshkumar Lalabhai Rajat Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2021 (4) GLR 2957,
II. Varmora Jayantilal Mohanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Through Secretary reported in 2012 (3) GCD 2418; and
III. Dharam Singh & ORS Vs. State of UP & ANR.
reported in AIR 2025 SC 3897.
6.4 Lastly, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners
would request this Court to allow the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
7. Per contra, Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate for
respondent Nos.2 to 4 have vehemently opposed this petition
and placed reliance upon affidavit in reply filed by
respondents. It is submitted that this petition is premature one,
inasmuch as there is no cause of action in favour of the
petitioners to maintain this petition with the prayers made in
this petition.
7.1 It is further submitted that the terms of appointment of
all the petitioners are clear and as such, their appointment is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
on ad-hoc basis only for 11 months contract, that too, on fixed
salary. It is further submitted that as per advertisement placed
on record by respondents issued in the year 2014, it also gives
a clear picture that all these appointments are ad-hoc in
nature.
7.2 Mr. Meena, learned advocate would further submit that
even terms of appointment of petitioners are also very much
clear, thereby, none of the petitioners can maintain the claim
of regular pay upon completion of 5 years. As per condition
Nos.1, 3 and 4 of their appointment, it is clear that
appointments of petitioners are on ad-hoc basis, as and when
any regular selectee would be available, they are required to
be removed from service. It is also submitted that petitioners
cannot claim for regularization within short period of time
from their appointment.
7.3 Mr. Meena, learned advocate would further submit that
Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 pressed into the
service by petitioners would not be applicable, inasmuch as the
appointment of the petitioners is on ad-hoc basis, unlike a
regular selection through direct recruitment.
7.4 It is further submitted that Government Resolution dated
04.03.2024 also would not applicable to the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
petitioners as their appointment on contractual basis is much
prior to the issuance of said Resolution. It is also submitted
that as per the said Resolution, Government has only
sanctioned 67 posts of Junior Clerk to be filled by following
the scheme of Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006.
7.5 Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the respondents, would
request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
8. Learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwal, would adopt the
arguments canvassed by Mr. Meena, learned advocate.
9. No other submissions are being made by any of the
learned advocates.
ANALYSIS:-
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of their pleadings and documents, it
would emerge that appointments of the petitioners are ad-hoc
appointment only for 11 months that too on the fixed pay-
salary. The one of the advertisements placed on record by
respondents issued in the year 2014 would clearly indicate said
fact. The terms of the appointment of petitioners also requires
to be considered by this Court, more particularly, condition
Nos.1,3,4 and 5, the closest translation of which from Gujarati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
to English read thus:-
1. This appointment is purely on a temporary and contractual
basis for a period of 11 months. At any point of time, the
claim for permanent employment shall not be made.
3. If the Government/Head Office appoints new employee on
the appointed post or for any reasons the post requires to
be vacated, in that case, the employee will be removed
from service without any prior notice that too before end
of prescribed period.
4. The candidate shall not be entitled to any benefits other
than the fixed monthly remuneration.
5. During the contract period, the candidate shall not be
entitled to any kind of increment or additional allowances.
Government employee benefits shall not be applicable. The
nature of service is only on contractual basis.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case and considering the nature of appointment as
well as condition of service of the petitioners, it is very much
clear that all the petitioners are appointed on ad-hoc basis and
as and when any appointment will be made by the
Government/Head Office of respondents, their services require
to be discontinued by respondents and accordingly, they will
be removed from service.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
12. So far as Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 is
concerned, its' preamble itself would suggest that it would not
be applicable to the contractual employees who are appointed
only for 11 months on fixed salary. The scheme of aforesaid
resolution would be applicable to the candidates who are
appointed on regular posts through regular selection. As an
austere measure, the State by way of said resolution/policy
decided to offer fix salary for 5 years to said selectee, unlike
the petitioners herein, who have been appointed on 11 months
contract, though renewed from time to time.
12.1 Likewise, the Government Resolution dated 04.03.2024
relied upon by the petitioners would also not applicable,
inasmuch as it relates to sanctioning new 67 posts for Junior
Clerk to be filled by the respondents, wherein there is a
reference of aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006
made. It is not in dispute that petitioners are appointed prior
to aforesaid resolution dated 04.03.2024.
13. There is no cavil that if the posts are filled not as
ad-hoc/temporary/fixed terms etc., but on permanent basis, in
view of the aforesaid resolution dated 16.02.2006, the
respondents requires to pay regular salary to such candidate
upon successful completion of his 5 years of service. There is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
nothing on record to show that appointments of the petitioners
are on permanent basis and on sanctioned post
14. Even the circular dated 19.11.2013 passed by respondent
no.2 would also not strengthen the case of the petitioners,
inasmuch as condition nos. 1 and 2 of the said circular would
indicate that intention of respondent no.2 is to appoint the
Clerk-cum-Accountant for 11 months on contractual basis. The
condition No.5 would only indicate that in a case where any
post vacant for Clerk-cum-Accountant in the School, it should
be appointed without fail.
15. As discussed hereinabove, the appointments of all the
petitioners are on ad-hoc basis, maybe against vacant posts,
(which is not clear even from record), then also, it would not
mean that petitioners would be automatically governed by
aforesaid Resolution dated 16.02.2006. The condition of
appointment of the petitioners is very much clear that once
any appointment will be made by the Government/Head Office
of respondent, their services require to be discontinued and
accordingly, they will be removed from service. The petitioners
have no fundamental rights to seek protection of their
contractual service beyond terms of their contractual period.
With open eyes, they have accepted the terms of their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
appointment. It requires to be noted here that their ad-hoc
services are protected by ad-interim order passed by this Court
which is operating since 2019 till date. According to my view,
once the period of contract gets over, petitioners have not
right to continue in service unless the respondent renew such
service for further period of time.
16. Lastly, the judgments which are cited by learned
advocate for the petitioners would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case for following reasons:-
16.1 In the case of Shaileshkumar Lalabhai Rajat (supra), the
facts are very-eloquent and can be seen from reading para-17
of the said judgment that similarly situated contractual
employee was given benefit of Government Resolution dated
16.02.2006 and having noticed that there is a discriminatory
treatment meted out to the concerned petitioners, following the
dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the
Division Bench of this Court has granted the similar benefits.
16.1.1 In the case on hand, there is no such instances
cited that any appointee like petitioners have been granted the
benefit of the aforesaid Resolution of the State. Moreover, as
on the date of filling of this petition, none of the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
have completed 10 years of contractual service, as this petition
was filed on 05.03.2019 and oldest appointee petitioner is
petitioner No.9, appointed on 09.10.2009. In light of above
stated facts of the present case, even considering the ratio of
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra),
the same would not be applicable; rather, petition is premature
one for the same.
16.2 In the case Varmora Jayantilal Mohanbhai (supra), in
para-3.3, the Division Bench observed that petitioners were
duly selected and appointed pursuant to the NOC granted by
respondents - authorities for the vacancy in the duly
sanctioned posts. Further, their appointment was not for a
limited period like the case on hand. In light of these
distinguishing features, according to my view, the aforesaid
decision would also not be applicable to the case on hand.
16.3 In the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. (supra), all the
petitioners were engaged by respondent concerned between
1989 and 1992 on ad-hoc basis and in light of the facts of that
case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that State cannot
continue adhocism for long time, thereby violate the rights of
employee guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
16.3.1 As observed hereinabove, none of the petitioners
have completed 10 years of service as on the date of filling of
this petition; rather most of the petitioners are appointed in
the years between 2014 and 2017. According to my view, the
ratio of the Dharam Singh (supra) would not be applicable to
the facts of the present case.
17. In view of the foregoing observations, discussions and
reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in
the claim of the petitioners and as such the present petition
requires to be dismissed.
18. At this stage, Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the
petitioners would request this Court that interim relief granted
earlier may continue for four weeks in favour of the
petitioners.
19. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the respondents would
emphasize that as per Condition No.6 of appointment; even
otherwise one month prior notice is required to be issued
before effecting termination of service of the petitioners.
20. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and the interim
relief is continued till date, I am of the view that same shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4747/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
be remained operative until 24.04.2026.
21. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition
is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
PARMAR CHIRAG
