Gujarat High Court Allows Regularization of Fixed Pay Employee from Initial Appointment Date in Municipal Service — Cut-off Date of 01/01/2017 Set Aside. Continuous Service Since 2000 Entitles Employee to Regularization from Date of Initial Appointment Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Liladhar Haribhai Borad, was appointed as a fixed pay employee in the Water Works Department of Junagadh Municipal Corporation on 11/05/2000 at a fixed salary of Rs.2,000/-. His service was renewed periodically. The Corporation later regularized his services but only from 01/01/2017, not from his initial appointment date. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to regularize his service from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. The court considered the short controversy regarding the cut-off date for regularization. The petitioner argued that since he had been continuously serving since 2000, regularization should be from the initial appointment. The respondent contended that the cut-off date was fixed as per policy. The court analyzed that the petitioner had worked continuously without any break and that the cut-off date of 01/01/2017 was arbitrary and not justified. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regularization from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 11/05/2000, and directed the respondent to issue revised orders granting regularization from that date with all consequential service and monetary benefits. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularization - Fixed Pay Employee - The petitioner, appointed on fixed pay in 2000, sought regularization from initial appointment date instead of cut-off date 01/01/2017 granted by the Corporation - Court held that regularization must be from the date of initial appointment as the employee continued in service without break and the cut-off date was arbitrary - Held that the respondent's order granting regularization from 01/01/2017 was unsustainable (Paras 3-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, a fixed pay employee appointed on 11/05/2000, is entitled to regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment or only from 01/01/2017 as granted by the respondent Corporation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 11/05/2000 and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits. The order of the respondent granting regularization from 01/01/2017 is set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Regularization of service
  • fixed pay employee
  • daily wager
  • initial appointment date
  • cut-off date
  • Article 226
  • Constitution of India
  • Gujarat Municipal Service Regulations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 309

R/Special Civil Application No. 1965 of 2019

2026-03-12

Maulik J. Shelat

Ms. Shivangi M. Rana for the Petitioner, Mr. Digant B. Kakkad for the Respondent

Liladhar Haribhai Borad

The Commissioner, Junagadh Municipal Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularization of service from initial appointment date.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize his service from the date of initial appointment with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

Filing Reason

The respondent Corporation regularized the petitioner's service only from 01/01/2017 instead of from his initial appointment date of 11/05/2000.

Previous Decisions

The respondent had passed an order granting regularization from 01/01/2017, which the petitioner challenged.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization from the date of initial appointment (11/05/2000) or only from the cut-off date (01/01/2017) granted by the respondent.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he had been continuously serving since 2000 and regularization should be from the initial appointment date. Respondent contended that the cut-off date of 01/01/2017 was fixed as per policy and was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

A fixed pay employee who has been continuously serving since his initial appointment is entitled to regularization from that date, and an arbitrary cut-off date for regularization is unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The short controversy germane to the matter as regards the claim of the petitioner seeking regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment and not from 01/01/2017 granted by respondent - Junagadh Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was appointed in the Water Works Department of the Corporation, vide its office order dated 11/05/2000, on a fixed pay of Rs.2,000/-.

Procedural History

The petitioner was appointed on 11/05/2000 on fixed pay. His service was renewed periodically. The respondent regularized his service from 01/01/2017. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 11/02/2019 challenging the cut-off date. The matter was heard on 12/03/2026 and judgment was pronounced.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Regularization of Fixed Pay Employee from Initial Appointment Date in Municipal Service — Cut-off Date of 01/01/2017 Set Aside. Continuous Service Since 2000 Entitles Employee to Regularization from Date of Initial Appoint...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Labour Court Award of Reinstatement with 50% Backwages for Watchman in Industrial Dispute Case. Oral Termination Without Following Due Procedure Violates Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.