Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Zila Parishad in Regularization Case — Contractual Driver Not Entitled to Permanency Despite Long Service. Initial Appointment Was Temporary and Stopgap, No Right to Regularization Arises from Continued Engagement on Contractual Basis.

Admin

2026-05-18 19:26:50

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had directed regularization of respondent Santosh Tukaram Tiware as a driver. The respondent was initially appointed on a temporary contractual basis in 2010 as an ambulance driver at a primary health centre, pursuant to a communication from the District Health Officer to the Block Development Officer. The appointment was made locally on an urgent basis to ensure ambulance services were not disrupted, pending completion of a tender process for outsourcing driver services. The appointment order explicitly stated that the engagement was temporary and would terminate upon appointment of a regular Zila Parishad driver. The respondent's tenure was extended every two months on the same terms, and he continued working for over nine years due to delays in the tender process. In 2021, the tender was awarded to M/s Rakshak Security Services and Systems Pvt. Ltd., and the respondent's services were terminated on 15.07.2021. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking regularization, without challenging the termination order. The High Court set aside the termination and directed regularization, holding that the respondent had worked continuously for over nine years. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the respondent's initial appointment was purely contractual and stopgap, made without following due selection process. The Court emphasized that mere length of service does not confer any right to regularization, especially when the appointment was not through a regular process. The termination was valid as it was in compliance with the terms of the contract upon completion of the tender process. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularization - Contractual Appointment - Temporary Employee - Right to Regularization - Initial appointment was on contractual basis for a limited period till tender process for outsourcing driver services was completed - Appointment was made without following due selection process and was purely temporary and stopgap - Held that mere continuation of service for over nine years due to delay in tender process does not confer any right to regularization or permanency (Paras 6-7).

B) Service Law - Termination - Contractual Employment - Validity - Termination of contractual driver upon completion of tender process and award of contract to outsourcing agency - Termination order dated 15.07.2021 was in compliance with CEO's order and was not challenged by the employee - Held that High Court erred in setting aside the termination without any challenge and ordering regularization (Paras 4.4, 6.2).

C) Service Law - Regularization - Principles - Appointment without Following Procedure - Employee appointed on contractual basis without any regular selection process - Such appointment is stopgap and does not create any right to regularisation - Reliance on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - Held that regularization cannot be ordered in absence of initial appointment through regular process (Para 7).

Issue of Consideration

Whether a contractual employee appointed on temporary basis for a limited period, whose services were continued due to delay in tender process, is entitled to regularization and permanency merely because of long service.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.12.2021, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to regularization as his initial appointment was contractual and stopgap, and the termination was valid upon completion of tender process.

Law Points

Regularization cannot be ordered for contractual/temporary employees appointed without following due procedure
mere length of service does not confer right to regularization
termination of contractual engagement upon completion of tender process is valid

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (11) 9

Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 3466 of 2022)

2022-01-01

M. R. Shah

A. Karthik (for appellants), Mrs. V. Mohana (for respondent No. 1)

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors.

Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order directing regularization of a contractual driver

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of High Court order directing regularization and permanency of respondent No. 1

Filing Reason

High Court set aside termination order and directed regularization of respondent No. 1, who was appointed on contractual basis

Previous Decisions

High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4731/2021 dated 16.12.2021 set aside termination and ordered regularization

Issues

Whether a contractual employee appointed on temporary basis for a limited period, whose services were continued due to delay in tender process, is entitled to regularization and permanency merely because of long service. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order without any challenge and directing regularization.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that respondent was appointed on contractual basis till tender process was completed; mere continuation does not confer right to regularization; termination was valid as per contract terms. Respondent argued that he worked for over ten years continuously and therefore High Court correctly ordered regularization; relied on Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Sheo Narain Nagar.

Ratio Decidendi

A contractual/temporary employee appointed without following due procedure and on stopgap basis does not acquire any right to regularization merely because of long service. Termination of such engagement upon completion of the purpose (e.g., tender process) is valid and cannot be set aside without challenge.

Judgment Excerpts

At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has directed the appellants – Zila Parishad to regularize the services of respondent No. 1 as a driver. However, it is required to be noted that when respondent No. 1 was initially appointed in the year 2010, he was appointed on temporarily contractual basis till the tender process to award the contract for availing the services of the driver is completed. In the appointment order itself it was specifically provided that if at the said place appointment of Zila Parishad driver is done then the appointment of concerned driver will be terminated. Therefore, at the relevant time neither there was any selection process followed nor it can be said that the appointment of respondent as driver was made after following due procedure as required. Merely because the respondent continued for a long time on contractual/temporary basis, the respondent has not acquired any right to get his services regularized.

Procedural History

Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 4731/2021 before the Bombay High Court on 31.07.2021 seeking regularization. The High Court issued notice on 30.08.2021 and granted interim relief allowing him to continue. By judgment dated 16.12.2021, the High Court set aside the termination order dated 15.07.2021 and directed regularization. The Zila Parishad appealed to the Supreme Court by SLP (C) No. 3466 of 2022. On 07.03.2022, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order. The appeal was finally heard and allowed.