No Automatic Right To Backdated Regularization; Municipal Corporations May Consider Financial And Administrative Constraints: Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi set aside an order of a single judge bench that directed Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to backdate the regularization of certain daily wage workers. The Court held that municipal corporations cannot be compelled to regularize workers retrospectively, even if the workers had completed the service requirements earlier. It held that AMC has the discretion to implement regularization policies according to its administrative requirements and financial constraints. Background In 2000, daily wage workers employed by AMC filed a writ petition seeking regularization of their services. While the petition was pending, AMC passed a resolution in 2004 stating that workers who had completed five years and 900 days of service by 15-08-2004 would be regularized through the creation of supernumerary posts. Following this resolution, AMC regularized 2823 workers, and the writ petition was disposed of. In 2006, additional employees who had not been included in this process filed new writ petitions seeking similar regularization. In response, AMC passed a resolution in 2008 and regularized these workers, effective 17-03-2008. However, the workers filed another writ petition seeking retrospective regularization from 01-11-2005. They argued that they had already met the service requirements by that date. A Single Judge allowed their petition and ordered regularisation. Aggrieved, AMC appealed against this decision. Arguments Representing AMC, Senior Advocate Kamal Trivedi argued that forcing AMC to regularize workers retrospectively would be financially unviable. He pointed out that the same policy regarding regularisation had been consistently applied before, including in 2004. He also argued the workers had accepted their regularization in 2008 without any complaints and should not be allowed to raise this issue now. However, Senior Advocate Yatin Oza argued that AMC's refusal to backdate their regularization was unfair and against earlier policies from 1983 and 1994. These policies, he said, required AMC to regularize workers as soon as they met the service criteria. He also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65], which held that long-serving workers deserved regularization. Court's Reasoning The court found AMC's convention of regularizing workers through resolutions noteworthy and commendable. Regularization, the court said, couldn't be treated as an automatic right unless there were enough vacant posts available. It observed that AMC had already gone the extra mile by creating posts to regularize the deserving workers. Further, the court found that the ratio of Nihal Singh didn't apply here. It clarified that Nihal Singh was about statutory appointments, while AMC was a corporation whose decisions were based on its own policies. The court noted that AMC cannot be compelled to create supernumerary posts, and then also effectuate them from a retrospective date. It referred to a Division Bench ruling in Letters Patent Appeal No.545 of 2017, where in a similar situation, the court ruled against retrospective regularisation and held that AMC had the right to follow its internal policies. The court pointed out that backdating regularization would disrupt AMC's finances. It also held that allowing retrospective regularisation could reopen cases of workers regularised in 2004, creating chaos for thousands of workers. Thus, it allowed AMC's appeal and set aside the single judge's decision. The court confirmed that it is always within AMC's domain to regularize its employees keeping in mind its administrative requirement and financial constraints. It concluded that workers couldn't demand backdated regularization only because they met the service criteria earlier. Decided: 11-12-2024 Neutral Citation: 2024:GUJHC:67865-DB (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Prajapati Rohit P.) Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu and Ms. Ankeeta Rajput Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.N. Marfatia Click Here To Read/Download The Order

No Automatic Right To Backdated Regularization; Municipal Corporations May Consider Financial And Administrative Constraints: Gujarat HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags