The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that ad hoc employees engaged for extended periods under centrally sponsored schemes like PMGSY are entitled to regularization and consequential service benefits, provided their service was continuous and not merely temporary. This judgment reinforces the principle that prolonged ad hoc employment, especially in public interest roles, cannot be treated as transient and must be regularized to uphold constitutional guarantees of fair treatment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nagorao S/o Narayanrao Jogdand, was appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Junior Accounts Officer Grade-C under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Parbhani district, Maharashtra. His appointment was made pursuant to Government Resolution dated 20.10.2010, which created posts for implementation of PMGSY across the state. The petitioner held a Master’s degree in Commerce and was deemed eligible for the position.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed on 15.06.2011 on an ad hoc basis for an initial period of 11 months, with a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000
- The appointment order explicitly stated that the engagement was temporary and subject to renewal
- On 09.08.2011, the State Government issued instructions that appointments for Accounts Officer Grade-B and C were for 11 months only, with renewal subject to a committee’s approval
- The petitioner’s service was extended multiple times, culminating in a final extension granted by Government Resolution dated 02.03.2015, valid until 29.02.2016
- The petitioner’s initial date of joining was 15.06.2011, and his tenure was set to end on 19.08.2015
- The petitioner was not absorbed into any permanent cadre despite continuous service of over four years
- Similar employees in Parbhani district filed Writ Petition No. 4465/2015, resulting in an interim order dated 21.08.2015 restraining adverse action against them
- The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 20.07.2015, seeking regularization, permanency, and consequential benefits
Procedural History
- 15.06.2011: Petitioner appointed on ad hoc basis as Junior Accounts Officer Grade-C
- 09.08.2011: State circular issued limiting ad hoc appointments to 11 months
- 02.03.2015: Final extension granted until 29.02.2016
- 21.08.2015: Interim order passed in this petition protecting petitioner’s services
- 23.01.2026: Bombay HC delivered judgment in Mahesh Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 3489/2015), directing regularization of similarly situated PMGSY employees
- 23.02.2026: Aurangabad Bench upheld Mahesh Bhagat in Supriya Parshuram Saynod v. Union of India (W.P. No. 2017/2021)
- 24.03.2026: Nagpur Bench followed Mahesh Bhagat in Mahesh Dnyaneshwar Dambhare v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 5290/2016)
- 22.04.2026: Present petition decided
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that his continuous service of over four years, despite ad hoc designation, amounted to de facto permanent employment. He relied on the binding precedent in Mahesh Chandrakant Bhagat and contended that denial of regularization violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Respondents: Did not dispute the facts or the Mahesh Bhagat judgment but submitted that the State had initiated proceedings to challenge it via Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. They argued that regularization could not be ordered until the SLP was decided.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Regularization of services with effect from 15.06.2011
- Grant of permanency in service
- Consequential benefits including pay scale, promotions, and pension
- Payment of arrears of salary for three years preceding the filing of the petition, with bank interest
- Creation of permanent posts to absorb him in Zilla Parishad, State Government, or a Society
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an ad hoc employee, who has rendered continuous service for over four years under a government scheme, is entitled to regularization and consequential benefits under constitutional principles of equality and reasonable classification, in light of a binding precedent on identical facts.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the judgment in Mahesh Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, which held that prolonged ad hoc employment under PMGSY, without any competitive selection process or statutory bar to regularization, cannot be treated as temporary. The counsel argued that the petitioner’s service was not intermittent, he performed core governmental functions, and the State had not demonstrated any legitimate reason to deny permanency. He further cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan to establish that long-term ad hoc service creates a legitimate expectation of regularization.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader conceded the factual similarity with Mahesh Bhagat but submitted that the State had initiated steps to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition. He argued that until the SLP is heard and a stay is granted, the judgment remains binding but its enforcement should be suspended to avoid irreparable consequences to the State’s administrative structure.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the State had not contested the factual matrix of the petitioner’s service or the applicability of Mahesh Chandrakant Bhagat. It noted that the judgment in Mahesh Bhagat had been consistently followed by two other Benches of this Court within weeks of its delivery, affirming its precedential value.
"The view taken in Mahesh Bhagat (supra) holds the field and it is binding precedent. The fact that the State proposes to challenge it in the Supreme Court does not render it inoperative until a stay is granted."
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, coupled with the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, requires that employees who have served continuously for years without any fault of their own cannot be denied regularization merely because their appointments were labeled "ad hoc." The Court rejected the State’s argument that pending SLPs could suspend the operation of a binding judgment, noting that such a stance would undermine judicial authority and create arbitrariness in public employment.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s service was not casual or intermittent but integral to the implementation of a national rural infrastructure scheme. The absence of a formal recruitment process did not negate the reality of his long-term contribution. The State’s failure to create permanent posts or conduct competitive selection over years amounted to a violation of the principle of equal opportunity.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to:
- Regularize the petitioner’s services with effect from 15.06.2011, with all consequential benefits including pay scale, seniority, and pension eligibility
- Pay arrears of salary for the three years preceding the filing of the petition (15.06.2012 to 20.07.2015) with bank interest at the prevailing rate
- Create a permanent post to absorb the petitioner in the Zilla Parishad, State Government, or a Society within six months
- Disburse all arrears and benefits within six months from the date of this judgment
What This Means For Similar Cases
Ad Hoc Service Beyond Four Years Creates Legitimate Expectation
- Practitioners representing ad hoc employees under government schemes must now argue that continuous service exceeding three to four years, without break or performance issues, triggers a legitimate expectation of regularization
- The label "ad hoc" cannot override the reality of long-term, integral service
- Courts will not permit the State to delay regularization by filing SLPs while continuing to retain employees
Consequential Benefits Are Non-Negotiable
- Arrears must be calculated from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of filing
- Bank interest on arrears is mandatory, not discretionary
- Pension, increments, and seniority must be computed from the original date of joining
- Absorption into permanent posts is not optional - it is a constitutional imperative
State’s Pending SLPs Do Not Stay Lower Court Orders
- The pendency of an SLP in the Supreme Court does not suspend the binding effect of a High Court judgment
- Lower courts must apply binding precedents unless expressly stayed
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to oppose stays sought by the State on grounds of pending appeals
