Commission-Based Workers At Civil Hospital Not Govt Servants; No Right To Regularisation: Gujarat High Court
Holding that handicapped staff at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital issuing case papers were only working on a contractual basis, earning a commission and were never appointed through a regular recruitment process, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant them status as government servants or direct regularisation of service.The court further said that since none of the petitioners were...
Holding that handicapped staff at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital issuing case papers were only working on a contractual basis, earning a commission and were never appointed through a regular recruitment process, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant them status as government servants or direct regularisation of service.
The court further said that since none of the petitioners were directly appointed by the respondent through due process, i.e., as per recruitment rules but through the Blind People's Association and are receiving their remuneration in the form of commission, their status remains that of 'commission agents' rather than employees in any form.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed:
“There is nothing on record to show and substantiate the case of the petitioners that they are within the direct control of the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Such instructions are required to be followed and obeyed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, is undisputedly one of the biggest hospitals in India providing various medical facilities to a large number of patients every day; then, considering the nature of the work of the petitioners, i.e., issuance/maintenance of case papers for outdoor and indoor patients, they cannot be allowed to act in their own way, including the opening and closing of windows at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Since there is no master-servant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent, the prayers made in this petition in regard to seeking declaration that the petitioners may be declared as Civil Servants/Government Servants cannot be granted".
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar and 13 other physically challenged persons who had been working at case paper counters in Civil Hospital since 2003. They had sought a declaration that they be treated as civil servants, regularised in service, and granted regular pay scale and other consequential benefits.
The petitioners were deployed after the Blind People's Association submitted a proposal to Civil Hospital to engage handicapped persons for issuing case papers and maintaining patient records. The hospital accepted the proposal, and the Association appointed the petitioners, who were paid ₹1 per case paper as commission.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Muskan A. Gogia argued that the petitioners had worked continuously for over two decades under the control and supervision of Civil Hospital authorities and were being exploited by being paid meagre amounts of ₹3,000–₹3,500 per month. She submitted that they performed duties similar to regular employees and were therefore entitled to regularisation and permanent employee status.
Opposing the plea, Assistant Government Pleader Siddharth Rami submitted that the petitioners were never appointed by the State but by the Blind People's Association under a contractual arrangement. He argued that they were paid commission and not salary, and therefore no employer-employee relationship existed between the State and the petitioners.
Accepting the State's stand, the Court found that the petitioners were not appointed by the Government, were not paid any fixed salary, and were engaged only pursuant to an outsourcing arrangement with the Association.
The Court distinguished State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884, noting that a Mauzadar-Revenue Contractor was treated as a public servant because he was appointed under statutory rules, exercised sovereign powers, and was subject to governmental control—features entirely absent in the present case, where the petitioners were merely paid commission without any statutory authority or disciplinary control.
It further held that Chennai Port Trust v. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association, (2018) 6 SCC 202 and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2025 SC 3897 were inapplicable, since those cases involved workers directly engaged by the State or under its administrative control, whereas the petitioners here were neither appointed by the Government nor paid wages, but were engaged through an outsourcing arrangement and paid only commission.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.
However, it observed that if the petitioners were aggrieved by exploitation, they were free to take appropriate action against the Blind People's Association or the outsourcing agency in accordance with law.
Appearance: MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849), MR BB GOGIA(5851), and MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Petitioners.
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
Case title:Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar v State of Gujarat
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10016 of 2018