Bombay High Court
NAMDEO TUKARAM DHONNAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the orders refusing regularisation and directed that all petitioners who have completed ten years of service be regularised with back‑dated pay‑scale benefits.
Summary
The petitioners, six long‑serving teachers and staff in tribal Ashram schools of Thane, claimed that despite completing ten to thirteen years of continuous service they remained on temporary, honorarium‑based appointments and were denied regularisation and pay‑scale benefits. The State had issued orders on 13‑14 January 2026 rejecting their regularisation, citing lack of interview, missing qualifications and procedural lapses. The petitioners relied on earlier High Court judgments, especially Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (2018) and Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar (2025), which held that ten years of service in sanctioned posts warrants regularisation irrespective of procedural irregularities. The Court examined the factual record, found the petitioners had indeed served continuously, were interviewed, and the State’s reasons were insufficient. Applying the ratio of Sadgir and subsequent decisions, the Court quashed the impugned orders, directed regularisation of all petitioners who had completed ten years of service, reinstatement of those terminated, and payment of regular pay‑scale benefits from the appropriate date. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the impugned orders refusing regularisation of the petitioners are legally valid.
- Whether ten years of continuous service in sanctioned posts obliges the State to regularise temporary teachers under Article 14 and Article 21.
- Whether procedural irregularities such as lack of interview or missing qualifications bar regularisation when the service requirement is satisfied.
Subjects
- regularisation
- temporary employment
- tribal education
- Article 14
- Article 21
- model litigant
- exploitation
- 7th Pay Commission
- government schools
- service tenure
Judgment
1 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6262 OF 2026
1. Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar, Age 46 years,
R/o.At Post Bhatsanagar, Tal.Sahapur, Dist.Thane.
2. Machindranath Dadu Katware, Age 42 years,
R/o.At Postl Kasara (Thakurwadi), Tal.Sahapur,
Dist.Thane.
3. Bhaskar Rama Pardhi, Age 38 years,
R/o.At Lakud Pad, Post Mal, Tal.Murbad,
Dist.Thane.
4. Govind DagduKarbhal, Age 41 years,
R/o.Dagdu, Moroshi, Sawane, Dist.Thane.
5. Somnath Nanasaheb Phapale, Age 38 years,
R/o.Otur, Tal.Junnar, Dist.Nashik.
6. Vasant Himmat Khairnar, Age 55 years,
R/o.At Post Wasind, Tal.Shahapur, Dist.Thane. Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner, Tribal Department,
Ground Floor, Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,
Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Thane.
3. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Thane Region, Thane.
4. The Project Director,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Shahapur, Dist.Thane. Respondents
_______
Ms.Pradnya Talekar with Ms.Madhuri Ayyapan and Ms.Arushi Keniya i/by
Talekar & Associates for Petitioner.
Mr.B.V.Samant, Additional Govt.Pleader with Smt.M.P.Thakur, AGP, for
Respondents.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
MANISH
Digitally signed by
MANISH
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 20th August 2026
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO
THATTE
THATTE
Date: 2026.09.03
15:14:40 +0530
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 3rd September 2026
M.S.Thatte
2 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
JUDGEMENT: (Per: Aarti Sathe, J): -
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties,
heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs: -
“A. To quash the impugned orders dated 13.1.2026 and 14.1.2026 issued by the
respondent nos.3 (Exhibit E) by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be;
B. To direct the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners either as
assistant teachers in class III or Kamathi/Bahudeheshiya in class IV in the basic or
post basic Ashram Schools run by the Tribal Development Department and pay all
the benefits of permanency to them from the date of completing 10 years of
service or filing of the petitions in earlier round of litigation in this Hon’ble Court,
whichever is earlier, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order as the case may be;
C. To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners salary in the pay-scales
prescribed to the post of assistant teacher and kamathi/bahudeshiya as per the
recommendations of 7th Pay Commission, by issuing writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order as the case may be;
D. To grant interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents,
subordinates, servants and anyone acting on their behalf from discontinuing or
terminating the service of petitioners on various post in Ashram Schools under
Tribal Development Department, as the case may be, pending hearing and final
disposal of this petition;
E. To issue suo-motu contempt proceedings against the respondent authorities
in circumventing the directions of this Hon’ble Court in WP Nos.6693 of 2023,
7862 of 2023, 4385 of 2024 and 4381 of 2024.”
3. The primary grievance of the Petitioners in the present petition is in
respect of orders dated 13th January 2026 and 14th January 2026 (hereinafter
referred to as the “impugned orders”) issued by Respondent No. 3-Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane Region, Thane, thereby refusing to
regularize the services of the Petitioners on the teaching and non-teaching posts,
despite various orders issued by this Court in respect of petitions filed by the
Petitioners.
M.S.Thatte
3 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
4. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioners were appointed as
secondary and primary school teachers in Government Ashram Schools, Thane
District. It is the Petitioners’ contention that all the Petitioners have completed 10
to 13 years of service in their respective secondary and primary schools, and the
same is evidenced by a chart annexed as Exhibit-A to the present petition.
Respondent No. 1 operates Government Ashram Schools to provide essential
education to tribal children in the remote, hilly and geographically challenging
terrains of Shahapur Project, District Thane. Due to lack of basic civic facilities in
these small villages, qualified staff are not willing to serve, leading to a critical
vacancy crisis, where schools are often on the verge of closure. It is in these
circumstances that the Respondents, instead of issuing public advertisements,
appointed the Petitioners as secondary and primary school teachers on daily wages,
clock-hour, or honorarium basis in view of the fact that Petitioners possess the
requisite qualifications, so that tribal students were not deprived of their
fundamental right to education.
5. It is the Petitioners’ contention that despite rendering continuous
service ranging from 10 to 13 years, they have been denied regular pay scales and
permanency benefits, and that the Respondents have issued fresh appointment
orders for every academic year, creating artificial breaks in service, which included
mandatory bonds forcing the Petitioners to disclaim any right to permanency. It is
the Petitioners’ contention that these are exploitative breaks in service given by the
Respondents. It is further the Petitioner’s contention that they have been working
either as secondary teachers or as primary teachers, and they have gained enough
M.S.Thatte
4 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
experience and knowledge, since they have been working for the last 10 to 13 years
in the said posts, which is evident from the initial and recent appointment orders.
6. Being aggrieved by the continued temporary status despite rendering
long years of service, and the Respondents’ failure to regularize the Petitioners’
services, the Petitioners were constrained to approach this Court to seek
regularization of their services. On 31 st October 2018 this Court in Madhukar
Bhavanrao Sadgir and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others 1 directed
the regularization of teaching and non-teaching staff and clarified that ten years’
service is the benchmark and sole criteria for regularization, and held that any
procedural irregularities stand covered by such dedicated service.
7. Further, on 30th January 2025, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2,
filed by the Petitioners in an earlier round of litigation, once again specified that
those employees who had completed ten years of service shall be considered for
regularization. Pursuant to the above order and considering that the Petitioners had
completed ten years of service, they approached the Respondent authorities for
absorption/ regularization, which has not been done so far. It is the Petitioners’
contention that the Petitioners have attended the hearing before the concerned
Respondent authorities, and even submitted documents for verification, and yet
the regularization of the Petitioners’ services remain pending. However, on 13 th
January 2026 and 14th January 2026, Respondent No. 3-Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane Region, Thane vide orders of even
1 Writ Petition No.5867 of 2015, decided on 31-10-2018
2 Writ Petition No.6693 of 2023, decided on 30-1-2025
M.S.Thatte
5 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
dates passed orders rejecting the regularization request of the Petitioners for the
reasons mentioned therein. The official English translation of the order dated 13 th
January 2026 pertaining to Petitioner No. 3 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
Order
In connection with the letter referred to at Serial No. 7, Shri Bhaskar Rama
Pardhi was granted an opportunity to putforth his say with reference to his case on
the date 08/01/2026 in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However,
the concerned petitioner submitted a joint representation.
As stipulated in the Order dated 30/01/2025 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in Writ Petition No. 7862/2023, referred to hereinabove under the Caption
‘Read’ at Serial No. 2, the service particulars, Appointment Order and related
aspects of Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi have been verified.
The Hon’ble High Court in Paragraph 4, has clarified that only those
candidates who have completed 10 years of continuous service shall be eligible for
regularization.
The Hon’ble High Court has specified the following criteria for the
regularization of Teachers-candidates working on a daily-wage basis:
1. The candidate must have completed 10 years of service on a dailywage / clock-
hour basis.
2. The Teacher-staff member must have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET); if
not, passing the upcoming TET examination (Illegible) (01/09/2027) shall be
mandatory.
3. As regards the teachers who have completed 10 years of service, it is mandatory
that they have been appointed on the basis of educational qualifications following an
interview conducted prior to their appointment.
However, upon verification of the documents of Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi,
the following facts have come to the notice.
I. At the time of Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi's appointment, no interview was
conducted.
II. Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi was appointed without adhering to the prescribed due
process.
III. The Petitioner has failed to submit evidence in respect of the abovementioned
points.
Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi does not possess the mandatory qualification of
TAIT (Teacher Aptitude and Intelligence Test) required for the post of Secondary
Teacher, as per Government Resolution No. RTE2010/M.No.572/P.T.-1 dated
13/02/2013 issued by the School Education Department. Moreover, he fails to
comply with other conditions set forth in the Order of the Hon’ble High Court.
Therefore, taking into comprehensive consideration all the facts mentioned
M.S.Thatte
6 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
hereinabove and in accordance with the information submitted by the concerned
Project Officer, it is hereby decided that since Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi does not
satisfy the criteria laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, he is not eligible for
regularization on the post of Secondary Teacher / Primary Teacher under the Tribal
Development Department. Consequently, the claim of Shri Bhaskar Rama Pardhi
for regularization of service stands rejected.
8. We have heard Ms. Talekar, along with Ms. Madhuri Ayyapan and Ms.
Arushi Keniya appearing on behalf of Petitioners, and Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional
Govt. Pleader along with Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP, appearing on behalf of the State.
9. At the very outset, learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners Ms.
Talekar submitted that the impugned orders dated 13 th January 2026 and 14th
January 2026 have been passed in complete disregard of the settled position in law,
as enunciated in the judgment of this Court in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir
(supra). Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent No. 3-
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane Region, Thane has sought
to place an erroneous interpretation on the directions/decision as rendered by this
Court in the case of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) to hold that the
Petitioners are ineligible and cannot be regularized. She has further submitted that
in a series of decisions the ratio as laid down in the case of Madhukar Bhavanrao
Sadgir (supra) has been followed to regularize the services of the Petitioners
therein, who had completed ten years or more of service. She has sought to place
reliance on the following decisions, wherein the decision rendered in Madhukar
Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) has been followed:-
i. Satappa Krushnath Powar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 529 Of 2019),
ii. Kamlakar Jagannath Patil And Others V/s The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (Writ Petition No. 8115 Of 2021),
M.S.Thatte
7 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
iii. Kakasaheb S/o Pandharinath Chavan & Ors. Vs. The State Of
Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition Nos. 5263 of 2021 & 6811 of 2021),
iv. Pandurang Hari Shelke Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 8524 of 2022- Aurangabad Bench),
v. Kusum Babalu Bhoye and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2023- Aurangabad Bench),
vi. Tanaji Vasant Vasave & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 3136 of 2023- Aurangabad Bench),
vii. Dhirsing Punya Raut & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2023- Aurangabad Bench),
viii. Ganesh S/o Jagganath Rahane Vs. The State Of Maharashtra (Writ
Petition No. 3503 of 2023- Nagpur Bench),
ix. Dakram S/o Dashrath Dhongde & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2023- Nagpur Bench),
x. Suresh Kashinath Mahale & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 6799 of 2023),
xi. Vaneeta Ugalal Chavan & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 16724 of 2024),
xii. Manisha Govind More and & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 11496 of 2025),
xiii. Avinash Ramdas Lande Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 16074 of 2025).
10. She has further submitted that when regularization has been granted to
over 2,000 similarly situated employees, while denying the same to Petitioners,
who possess identical qualifications, it is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India, and further, the same is an arbitrary approach on the part
of Respondent No. 3-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane
Region, Thane. It is also her submission that the Government has to act as a model
M.S.Thatte
8 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
employer, and should not indulge in exploitative tactics against teachers who are
vulnerable and are teaching in remote and tribal areas for the benefit of tribal
students. In fact, the regularization of services of the Petitioners is a right which
must flow once the Petitioners have put in ten or more years of service, and the
same cannot be denied to them. It is further her contention that even the reasons
which have been given in the impugned orders dated 13 th January 2026 and 14th
January 2026 by Respondent No. 3-Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Thane Region, Thane to not regularize the Petitioners are incorrect
reasons, and the decision in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) has taken into
consideration all the aforesaid reasons. It is her contention that the Petitioners
were properly appointed, and interviews of the Petitioners were held prior to the
selection process, and the same is borne out by the order passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar and Others (supra) in the
earlier round of litigation filed by the Petitioners. The relevant paragraph of the
said order establishing the undisputed facts is reproduced below: -
“3. For the sake of brevity, we deem it appropriate to make a reference to the fact
that these Petitioners have been appointed by the concerned Respondent
Institutions as Assistant Teachers and/or Class III and Class IV employees in the
Post Basic Government Ashram Schools. They were called upon to participate in a
selection process and after conducting interviews, they were selected as Assistant
Teachers/class III/IV non-teaching staff category.”
11. She has further submitted that other objections/reasons given in the
impugned orders dated 13th January 2026 and 14th January 2026 also did not stand
to reason, inasmuch as all necessary documentation in respect of Petitioners’ claim
was submitted before Respondent No. 3-Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Thane Region, Thane at the time of hearing, and as also stated
M.S.Thatte
9 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
above, no advertisement was issued for the aforesaid posts, considering the peculiar
circumstances in which the appointments of the Petitioners were made. She has
further contended that in the case of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra), this
Court had granted regularization to the Petitioners therein, in respect of whose
appointments also, the advertisement(s) were not published, and as long as they
had completed 10 to 15 years of service, they were regularized. It is therefore her
submission that the impugned orders dated 13 th January 2026 and 14th January
2026 are liable to be set aside, and the ratio as laid down in the case of Madhukar
Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra), and the subsequent decision in Namdeo Tukaram
Dhonnar and others (supra) following Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) apply
with all force in the present petition.
12. Per contra, Mr. Samant, learned Additional G.P. has contended that the
present petition in not maintainable, inasmuch as there is an alternative remedy
available to the Petitioners to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(‘MAT’) in respect of their grievances. He sought to place reliance on the decision
of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India 3 in support of the aforesaid contention.
He also submitted that the Petitioners work on clock-hour basis and that they have
not disclosed their actual working hours, mode of selection, and therefore,
considering that the aforesaid are disputed questions of fact which have been
suppressed in the present petition, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
He sought to distinguish the decision as relied upon by the Petitioners in the case
of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) on the ground that there was a
3 (1997) 3 SCC 261
M.S.Thatte
10 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
contradiction in the aforesaid decision of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) in
paragraph Nos. 5 and 22, and hence the Petitioners cannot rely upon the aforesaid
findings to contend that even in respect of Petitioners who had not completed 10
years of continuous service as on 31 st October 2018 in the Government Ashram
Schools, regularization can be granted to them. He therefore submitted that in the
facts of the present case Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have not completed 10 years of
continuous service as on 31st October 2018, and also further that Petitioner No. 6
though has taken a stand that he has completed 13 years of service as on 31 st
October 2018, however, his service was not a continuous service and there were
breaks in his services, and hence the decision in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir
(supra) was not applicable to him. His entire contention was therefore based on the
fact that as on 31st October 2018, when the decision of Madhukar Bhavanrao
Sadgir (supra) was rendered, the Petitioners had not completed 10 years of service,
and hence the findings in the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to them.
He further sought to place reliance on the decision of State of Rajasthan and Ors
vs. Daya Lal & Ors.4to contend that regularization of services cannot be granted in
respect of employees who had not been appointed in pursuance of regular
recruitment in accordance with the relevant rules in an open competitive process
against sanctioned vacant posts. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgment it has
been held that the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India should be scrupulously followed, and the Court should not
issue a direction for regularization of services of employees which would be
4 (2011) 2 SCC 429
M.S.Thatte
11 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of
compliance of one of the elements of process of selection, which does not go to the
root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to
the constitutional scheme, and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be
regularized. He further sought to contend that the decisions of Bhola Nath vs The
State of Jharkhand & Ors.5 and Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors.6 on which learned
counsel for the Petitioner would seek to place reliance on for the purposes of
regularization did not consider the decision of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra), and
therefore, his submission was that on all counts, the present petition needs to fail.
He further submitted that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others
Vs. Umadevi and Others7, which is a decision rendered by a five judge bench
would have precedence over the decisions of Bhola Nath (supra) and Jaggo (supra).
He therefore submitted that the aforesaid regularization could not be accepted.
13. We have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties and perused the
papers and proceedings with their assistance, and we proceed to decide present
petition. At the very outset it is an undisputed position that the Petitioners on the
date of filing of the petition have completed either ten years, or more than ten
years of service. It is also evident that the reasons as given in the impugned orders
dated 13th January 2026 and 14th January 2026 are not sufficient to hold the
Petitioners ineligible for regularization, inasmuch as the Petitioners had been
interviewed prior to the selection process, and the evidence in support of the
5 2026 SCC Online SC 129
6 2024 SCC ONLine SC 3826
7 (2006)4 SCC 1
M.S.Thatte
12 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
contention of the Petitioners was submitted, and it is also an admitted position that
the advertisement for the posts was not published prior to the selection process in
the peculiar circumstances of the Petitioners’ appointments.
14. We are further of the view that considering the decision of Madhukar
Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that where the
Petitioners have been working continuously for ten years on a meagre honorarium,
asking the Petitioners to continue to work on such honorarium for such a long
period would certainly amount to their exploitation. The State is expected to be a
model litigant, as held in the said decision. We do not see any ground which has
been pointed out by the learned Additional Additional G.P. to not apply the
principle as laid down in the decision of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra). In
fact, the submissions made by learned Additional G.P. to differentiate the
applicability of the decision in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) are such which
ought to be rejected at their very threshold. The relevant paragraphs in the
aforesaid decision are reproduced below:
“14. In the present case majority of the persons have been appointed prior to ten
years and during the pendency of the writ petition some of them have completed
ten years. They are regularly working on the said posts on meager honorarium.
The government is expected to be a model litigant.
15. One needs to keep in mind that these petitioners were appointed as the
respondents were not getting Assistant Teachers so also Class III and Class IV
employees to officiate in the government tribal ashram school run under the Tribal
Development Department in the remote tribal areas. The respondents also did not
conduct the selection process for all these years. Keeping the petitioners for a long
period on honorarium would certainly amount to their exploitation.
16. Exceptional circumstances exist to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of at least those who have completed ten years of service as laid
down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and
Others (supra).
17. The following circumstances persuades us to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization of those who have completed ten years in service :
M.S.Thatte
13 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
(1) The posts on which the petitioners are appointed are
sanctioned posts.
(2) The work load is available.
(3) The petitioners have agreed to officiate at the time when the
respondents were not getting the necessary teaching and non
teaching staff to work in remote tribal
areas and more particularly when the means of communication and
transportation were scarce.
(4) The respondents have not undertaken selection process for all
these years to fill in the posts held by the petitioners.
(5) The petitioners are working continuously for ten years or more
on meager honorarium.
(6) Asking the petitioners to continue to work on meager
honorarium for such a long period would tantamount to their
exploitation not expected from the welfare State. The State is
expected to be a model litigant.
18. We have considered the case of only those petitioners who have completed
ten years or more in the service.
19. The petitioners and the respondents have given the details of the number of
years the petitioners have worked. During the pendency of the present writ
petition some of the petitioners are terminated from the service. We would not be
considering the case of the petitioners who are terminated from the service prior to
the completion of ten years. However, those petitioners who have completed ten
years of service and in spite of pendency of the writ petition are terminated are
required to be reinstated.
20. There is not much difference in the chart given by the petitioners and the
State with regard to the number of years the petitioners had worked.
21. In light of the above, we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The respondents shall regularize the services of the petitioners who have
completed ten years of service with effect from the date they have completed ten
years or the date of filing of writ petition whichever is later.
(ii) Those petitioners who are terminated after completion of ten years of service
during the pendency of the writ petition shall be reinstated and shall be granted
regularization from the date they have filed the petition or after completion of ten
years of service whichever is later.
(iii) For all practical purposes the services of the petitioners shall be considered
regular from the date as observed above. However, we may not grant them actual
financial benefit for the period prior to the present order. They will be entitled for
the regular pay scale from 01.011.2018.
M.S.Thatte
14 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
(iv) The respondents shall count the services of the petitioners from their date of
appointment continuously for counting ten years of their service.
22. We have not considered the cases of those petitioners who have not
completed ten years of their service. We leave it to the respondent-State to
consider their case on its own merits and as per their policy.”
15. Further, the decisions on which learned Additional G.P. seeks to place
reliance to contend that the Petitioner should not be regularized also do not
advance the case of the Respondent, inasmuch as in the case of Daya Lal & Ors.
(supra) the appointments of the Assistant Superintendents were on a temporary
basis, and also the aforesaid appointments were not made against sanctioned posts,
and hence on the basis thereof the relief of regularization was not granted. The
contention of the learned Additional G.P. that this decision was not considered in
the case of Bhola Nath (supra) and Jaggo (supra) deserves to be rejected, inasmuch
as in both the aforesaid cases the appointments were made against sanctioned posts
by way of an advertisement. In Bhola Nath (supra), the appointments were made
after following the prescribed selection process, including roaster clearance, and it
is in these facts that the Supreme court was of the view that regularization had to be
granted to the aforesaid employees. In fact, in the said decision the Supreme Court
has deprecated the practice of the State in continuing the Appellants therein on
sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying their consideration for regularization. It was
further held that the State as a model employer could not rely on contractual labels
or a mechanical application of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) to justify prolonged ad-
hocism or to discard long serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness,
dignity, and constitutional governance. Similar principles have been applied in the
M.S.Thatte
15 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
case of Jaggo (supra). In fact, in the case of Jaggo (supra) it has been specifically
held that the decision in Umadevi & Ors. (supra) did not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of services, fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment only
sought to prevent back door entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where appointments are not illegal but
possibly irregular, and where employees had served continuously against the
backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount. The relevant paragraphs of Jaggo (supra)
are reproduced below:-
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential
but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained
contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record,
warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and
must be rectified.
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 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, 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
M.S.Thatte
16 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
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 (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.
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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding
member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration 6 encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning
employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts
where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the
private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as
independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees.
The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the
practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a
means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits.
This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status
and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in
M.S.Thatte
17 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
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 functioning of an institution are often labeled 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, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
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 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.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging
workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour
M.S.Thatte
18 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach
aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector
to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The contention of the learned Additional G.P. therefore to contend that
the decisions of Jaggo (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra) were of a bench of lesser
strength than that of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as
the principles of Umadevi & Ors (supra) have been followed in the spirit in which
they have been rendered.
17. The decision in Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) has also been
followed in a series of decisions, which learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners
has sought to place reliance on, and as has been enumerated in paragraph No. 9
above, to contend that the regularization of the services of the Petitioners ought
not to be withheld. We are in agreement with the aforesaid contention, and
considering the series of decisions following the ratio in Madhukar Bhavanrao
Sadgir (supra), we are persuaded to hold that in the present facts also, the aforesaid
decision would squarely apply. Further, in the first round of litigation also, which
the present Petitioners had sought to bring to this Court, a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Namdeo Tukaram Dhonnar and Others (supra) had applied the
principle of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) and granted financial benefits of
arrears of pay scale in respect of the Petitioners therein, who had completed ten
years of employment. The order dated 30 th January 2025 in Namdeo Tukaram
Dhonnar and Others (supra) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is
M.S.Thatte
19 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
reproduced below :
18. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed in the light of the
foregoing conclusions and we further direct as under :-
[a] The procedure devised in Madhukar Sadgir(supra), shall be followed by the State
Government and appropriate scrutiny shall be carried out with regard to those
Petitioners who have completed 10 years of service, within the same time line as was
granted in Madhukar Sadgir(supra).
[b] We further direct that the letter issued by the Under Secretary, Maharashtra
Government, Tribal Development dated 25th May, 2023 would not be applicable to
those who have completed 10 years in service. The issue of retrospective application
is left open to be considered in a challenge to the said letter, if posed by any
aggrieved litigant in a substantive petition.
[c] Lastly, we direct the State Government to consider all these cases for payment of
the minimum pay in the lowest grade inclusive of dearness allowance as is payable to
the regular/permanent employees, notwithstanding whether they have completed 10
years or not.
18. Insofar as the contention of learned Additional G.P. that no
advertisement had been published prior to the selection process of the Petitioners,
it is clear that in the case of Madhukar Bhavanrao Sadgir (supra) also the aforesaid
situation had been taken into consideration, and even when the advertisement had
not been issued for appointment, the Petitioners had been regularized. In view
thereof, this argument of learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-State
deserves to be dismissed at its very threshold.
19. We are also of the view that there were GRs dated 12 th April 2022, 2nd
December 2022, 6th February 2023, 24th June 2024, and 8th July 2023 prescribing
regularization prior to passing the impugned orders, and therefore, the impugned
orders on this ground also are liable to be set aside. Considering the aforesaid
settled position in law, we are of the firm view that present petition deserves to
succeed. We, therefore, pass the following order in the interests of justice:-
M.S.Thatte
20 of 20 23.WP.6262.2026.DOC
ORDER
(i) The impugned orders dated 13th January 2026, and 14th January 2026
issued by Respondent No. 3-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development,
Thane Region, Thane are hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The Respondents shall regularize the services of the Petitioners who
have completed ten years of service w.e.f. the date they completed ten years of
service, or from the date of filing of this writ petition, whichever is later;
(iii) The Petitioners who have been terminated after ten years of service and
during the pendency of this writ petition shall be reinstated from the date they filed
the writ petition, or from the date of completion of ten years of service, whichever
is later;
(iv) The Petitioners shall be granted financial benefits from the date of
completing ten years of service, or from the date of filing of the writ petition in the
earlier round of litigation (Writ Petition No. 6693 of 2023), whichever is earlier;
(v) The aforesaid directions to be complied by the Respondents within a
period of three weeks from the date this order is made available to the Respondents
by the Petitioners;
(vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G.S.KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…