High Court of Gujarat
SANJAYKUMAR PRAMODRAY TRIVEDIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The petition for reinstatement and regularisation is dismissed due to the petitioner’s unexplained twelve‑year delay and failure to challenge the termination.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjaykumar Pramodray Trivedi, was appointed on a contractual basis as a Multi‑purpose Health Worker in 2005, with his contract extended until 8 February 2014. After that date his contract was not renewed and he did not challenge the termination. In 2026, twelve years later, he filed a petition seeking reinstatement and regularisation, relying on earlier Gujarat High Court decisions (SCA No.12537/2011, SCA No.6289/2011, SCA No.6707/2020 & No.8049/2022) where similarly situated employees were regularised. The Court observed that in those precedents the petitioners were still in service or had challenged termination, whereas the present petitioner had remained silent for over a decade and had obtained other employment. Considering the unexplained delay and lack of any prior challenge, the Court found no basis to entertain the petition and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a twelve‑year delay in challenging the non‑extension of a contractual appointment on a petition for reinstatement and regularisation?
- Can precedents where similarly situated employees were regularised be applied when the petitioner was not in service and did not contest the termination?
Subjects
- contractual employment
- regularisation
- reinstatement
- delay
- limitation period
- service law
- Gujarat High Court
Judgment
C/SCA/4725/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4725 of 2026
==========================================================
SANJAYKUMAR PRAMODRAY TRIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance :
JAIMIN A GANDHI for the Petitioner.
MS KINJAL VYAS, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :-
“(A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondent to re-instate the petitioner and
regularize the services of the petitioner along with
consequential bene4ts;”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on
contractual basis as Multi-purpose Health Worker by the
respondent No.1 by Resolution dated 25.2.2005 and his contractual
services were extended till 8.2.2014 by Resolution dated
29.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner’s contractual appointment
as Multi-purpose Health Worker was not extended beyond the
period of 8.2.2014.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that similarly
situated persons whose services were not regularized preferred
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/4725/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 and Special Civil
Application No.6289 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 25.7.2018
and 10.8.2016, the coordinate Bench of this Court directed
regularization of the services of those petitioners. According to
learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, considering the fact that
identically situated persons’ services were regularized, the services
of the petitioner may also be regularized.
4. When the Court posed a query to learned advocate Mr.
Jaimin Gandhi that when the petitioner’s contract has not been
extended beyond 8.2.2014 and when the petitioner has not
challenged the aforesaid action for all these years, how the
petitioner can seek reinstatement as well as regularization.
Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that services of the
similarly situated persons are regularized and, therefore, the
services of the present petitioner petitioner is also required to be
regularized. However, upon look at the judgment dated 25.7.2018
rendered in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011, the Court
found in the said case that the services of the petitioners were
terminated pending petition on 6.1.2018 and that was brought to
the notice of the Court by way of amendment and ultimately, the
Court passed the order of regularization.
56. As far as Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 is
concerned, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi could not point out that
the same was also in respect of termination as well.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi relied upon the decision
of this Court dated 5.5.2022 passed in Special Civil
Application No.6707 of 2020 with Special Civil Application
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/4725/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
No.8049 of 2022 wherein the Court relying upon the judgment
dated 25.7.2018 rendered in Special Civil Application No.12537 of
2011, regularized the services of the petitioner of the said petition,
namely, Mukeshbhai Gamanlal Patel. Mr. Gandhi, therefore,
submitted that as the Court even in petition preferred by similarly
situated employee considered the case of the petitioner and
regularized the services of the petitioner, the delay would not in
come in the way of the present petitioner and, therefore, notice
may be issued.
8. The Court asked learned advocate Mr. Gandhi to point
out from the order dated 5.5.2022, which was relied upon by him,
that in that case also, there was delay challenging the order of
termination and seeking reinstatement. However, learned
advocate Mr. Gandhi also could not point out from the said order
that the petitioner was ever terminated which would give an idea
that in all three petitions relied upon by learned advocate Mr.
Gandhi, at the time when the petitions were preferred, the
respective petitioners were very much in service and, therefore,
the aspect of regularization was considered by the Court. In the
instant case, the contract of the petitioner has already lived its life
and after 8.2.2014, the contract has not been extended. The
petition is preferred in the year 2026 i.e. after delay of 12 years
and that too without challenging the order of termination.
9. The cause title also indicates that the occupation of the
petitioner is service and, therefore, when the petitioner has already
obtained job elsewhere which has been con4rmed by learned
advocate Mr. Gandhi during the course of his submissions, the fact
remains that the petitioner has never challenged the order whereby
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/4725/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
his contract was not extended beyond the period of 8.2.2014 and
remained silent for a period of 12 years without doing anything and
thereafter, being a fence sitter, after knowing that other persons
are regularized, he has approached this Court after a period of 12
years delay which has not been explained elsewhere in the petition.
10. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not
challenged the order of termination and yet seeks reinstatement
and regularization as well as considering the fact that the petition
is preferred after a period of 12 years after the date on which the
contract ended and such delay has not been explained, I do not see
any reason to entertain this petition, even for issuance of notice.
Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same
is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/04/2026 17:45:05
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.