Gujarat High Court
Jetpur Navagadh Municipality vs Pareshkumar Kantilal Parmar on 12 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 29/01/2026
Pronounced On : 12/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/18326/2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY
Versus
PARESHKUMAR KANTILAL PARMAR
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh P. Trivedi
appearing with learned advocate Mr.R.R. Trivedi for the
appellant and learned advocate Mr.Jeet Y. Rajyaguru
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
appearing for the respondent on advance copy.
2. The present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent, 1865 by the appellant-original
petitioner against the Order dated 25.09.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.18326 of 2021, whereby the petition came to be
dismissed and the Award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the
learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.)
No.94 of 2008 came to be confirmed.
3. The factual matrix of the present appeal are that the
respondent-original petitioner was engaged as a daily
wager with Jetpur Nagarpalika since 05.04.1989 as an
octroi clerk and was paid wages as per the minimum
wages. It is the case of the respondent that despite
existence of a sanctioned permanent post in the same
establishment, which remained vacant for a long period,
the respondent continued to work on a daily-wage basis.
Thereafter, with effect from 27.12.1990, the respondent
was engaged as a monthly wager. Thereafter, the
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
respondent-original workman came to be illegally
terminated from service on 31.12.1990.
4. Being aggrieved by the said termination, the
respondent raised Industrial Dispute and Reference
(L.C.R.) No. 651 of 1991 which came to be adjudicated by
the learned Labour Court by order dated 17.04.2006,
directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman on
his original post. The said order was challenged by the
appellant-Nagarpalika by filing Special Civil Application
No.23086 of 2006 before this Court. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent-workman was reinstated in service on
01.05.2007 and continued to work in the Tax Department
of the Nagarpalika.
4.1. Subsequently, by order dated 29.06.2007 in Special
Civil Application No.23086 of 2006, while the direction
granting continuity of service was set aside, the direction
of reinstatement was confirmed, as the respondent had
already been reinstated with effect from 01.05.2007.
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
Thereafter, the respondent-workman requested the
appellant-Nagarpalika to place him on a permanent post
and to grant salary and benefits accordingly. It is the case
of the respondent that he had worked for more than 240
days in each year and yet was not extended the benefits
of leave, overtime, or other service benefits.
Consequently, he raised another Industrial Dispute for
regularization by filing Reference (I.T.) No.94 of 2008
before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The learned
Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, by Judgment and Award dated
15.11.2019, partly allowed the reference and directed the
appellant-Nagarpalika to grant the benefit of permanency
to the respondent-workman with effect from 01.01.2010
till the date of the Award for notional purposes and
further directed payment of monetary benefits from the
date of the Award within a period of 30 days.
4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said
Judgment and Award dated 15.11.2019, the appellant-
Nagarpalika preferred Special Civil Application No.
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
18326 of 2021 before this Court. The said petition came
to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Order
dated 25.09.2025, thereby confirming the Award passed
by the learned Industrial Tribunal. Hence, the present
appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh P. Trivedi appearing
for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge
committed an error of law by not considering that the
appellant-Nagarpalika has no authority to fill up regular
posts by way of regularisation, as there is no such
provision under the Municipal Rules. Therefore, the
impugned Award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
He further submitted that as per the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the definition of “Unfair
Labour Practice” must strictly prove that the workman
was continued as a daily wager for years together with a
view to deprive him of regular appointment. The present
case of the respondent-workman does not satisfy the said
criteria. He further contended that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider that the respondent-workman
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
was reinstated in the year 2007, i.e. with effect from
01.05.2007, and that he raised the industrial dispute in
the month of July 2008 i.e. within one year of his
reinstatement. Therefore, merely one year of service
cannot be treated as long and continuous service so as to
entitle the workman for regularisation.
5.1. It was further submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate the factual aspect that the
appointment of the respondent was made without
following any selection procedure or prescribed
recruitment process and hence, the appointment was a
back-door entry and consequently, such service cannot be
regularised. He submitted that the respondent was
appointed only for a fixed period and fixed-term
appointment orders were also issued from time to time.
He further submitted that even assuming that casual, ad-
hoc, or daily-wage service rendered for a long number of
years may, in certain circumstances, be considered,
service of merely one or two years would not entitle an
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
employee to claim regularisation. Therefore, he submitted
that the present appeal is required to be allowed and the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is
required to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Jeet Y.
Rajyaguru appearing for the respondent submitted that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and
proper and does not require any interference. He further
submitted that Special Civil Application No.23086 of 2006
was preferred by the present appellant – original
petitioner, challenging the Award passed by the Labour
Court, and the said petition came to be partly allowed by
learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.12.2016. He
submitted that by the said order, the direction of
reinstatement of the claimant-original workman was
confirmed, while the grant of continuity of service was set
aside. Pursuant to the said order of the learned Single
Judge and in compliance with the Award of the Labour
Court to the extent it was confirmed, the appellant-
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
Nagarpalika reinstated the claimant-workman with effect
from 01.05.2007.
6.1. It was further submitted that the said order of
reinstatement, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge
and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1393 of 2017, has attained finality. Therefore,
considering that the respondent-workman has been in
service since 01.05.2007 and has completed more than
ten years of service, even as on today, no illegality or
perversity can be attributed to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. He, therefore, submitted that no
interference is required in the present appeal and that
the appeal is devoid of merits and is required to be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and having considered the facts of
the case, it is not in dispute that the present respondent
was working with Jetpur Nagarpalika since 1989 as a
daily wager as on 05.04.1989 in the Octroi Department as
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
naka clerk and was being paid minimum wages.
Thereafter, he came to be terminated from service on
31.12.1990.
8. Further, after his initial termination, the respondent
came to be reinstated in service with effect from
01.05.2007 pursuant to the Award passed by the Labour
Court. The said Award was challenged by the appellant-
Nagarpalika before learned Single Judge, which was
partly allowed wherein the direction of reinstatement was
confirmed and the direction granting continuity of service
passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, was set aside.
Thereafter, upon reinstatement, the present respondent
raised an industrial dispute by preferring a reference
before the Industrial Tribunal. The said reference came to
be partly allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the
present appellant was directed to grant permanency to
the respondent with effect from 01.01.2010, i.e. the date
of the Award, for notional purposes, and further directed
payment of monetary benefits from the date of the Award
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
within a period of 30 days.
9. In this regard, it is now required to consider the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned Judgment dated 25.09.2025, while dismissing
the petition preferred by the present appellant wherein,
the learned Single Judge observed as under:-
“6. Having considered the
arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties,
and upon examining the record, it
emerges that, as per the sanctioned
set-up produced before the learned
Labour Court in December 2012, out
of 26 sanctioned posts of clerks, 12
posts remained vacant. Further, as
per the seniority list dated
09.01.2013, the respondent’s name
was reflected at serial No.8, and
employees at serial Nos.1 to 7, as
well as those at serial Nos.10, 14,
15, and 16, were regularized
pursuant to the orders passed either
by this Court or by the learned
Labour Court.
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
6.1 It is not in dispute that
the respondent possessed the
educational qualification of
SSC pass, as evidenced by
the marksheet on record.
Though it was contended that
the respondent did not fulfill
the recruitment rules, no
such rules were ever placed
on record by the employer. It
is also undisputed that the
respondent was initially
appointed as a clerk in the
year 1989, terminated on
27.12.1990, and thereafter
reinstated pursuant to the
Award passed by the learned
Reference Court with effect
from 01.05.2007. The Award
granting reinstatement with
continuity of service was
challenged before this Court,
which interfered only to the
extent of denying continuity
of service.
6.2 It is pertinent to note that
the seniority list relied uponPage 11 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
is of 09.01.2013, i.e.,
subsequent to the
respondent’s reinstatement
on 01.05.2007. Though the
Reference was filed
immediately upon
reinstatement in July 2008,
the learned Industrial
Tribunal has balanced
equities by granting
permanency only with effect
from 01.12.2019, while
considering the period from
01.01.2010 to 01.12.2019
only for the purpose of
notional benefits.
6.3 It is true that length of
service by itself may not
automatically confer the right
of permanency. However,
when sanctioned posts
remained vacant, and juniors
to the respondent were
regularized, denial of similar
benefit to the respondent
amounts to adoption of unfair
labour practice. Further,
paying the respondentPage 12 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
minimum wages while
extracting the same work as
that of regular employees,
who were paid more than
double, amounts to
exploitation. Therefore, no
error can be said to have
been committed by the
learned Reference Court in
granting permanency to the
respondent.
6.4 As regards the reliance
placed on the decision in
Krishan Gopal and Others
(supra), it is noted that the
said matter was referred to a
Larger Bench to decide the
scope and content of “unfair
labour practice” under
Section 2(ra) read with Item
No.10 of the Fifth Schedule
of the I.D. Act. Since no final
pronouncement has yet been
rendered by the Apex Court
on that issue, the said
decision does not advance
the case of the petitioner.
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
7 With regard to the contention that
the respondent did not possess the
requisite educational qualification,
this Court has referred to the recent
decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo
v. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826, wherein it has
been held that the conduct of the
employers themselves demonstrates
that such criteria were not strictly
enforced in cases of regularization.
The Apex Court further observed
that long-standing and satisfactory
performance of an employee itself
attests to his capability to discharge
the functions, and therefore, a rigid
insistence on formal educational
qualifications would amount to
creating an unreasonable hurdle.
8 This Court in case of Dwarka
appellant-Nagarpalika vs. Mantri
Shree, Jamnagar Jilla Majdoor
Sangh & Anr has observed as
under:
“8. Financial viability no
doubt is one of the
considerations but thenPage 14 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
such enterprise or
institution should not
spread its arms longer
than its means. Where
work is taken not for a
short period or limited for
a season or where work is
not of part time nature
and if pattern shows work
is to be taken
continuously year after
year, there is no
justification to keep such
persons hanging as daily
rate workers. In such
situation a legal
obligation is cast on an
employer if there be
vacant post to fill it up
with such workers in
accordance with rules if
any. It is repeatedly
submitted that without
following the recruitment
rules, their entries were
made in the petitioner-
appellant-Nagarpalika. No
recruitment rules were
filed in the proceedingsPage 15 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
either before the Tribunal
or in the High Court on
behalf of the petitioner-
appellant-Nagarpalika.”
9 Having considered the overall
circumstances, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the impugned
Award. Accordingly, the petition fails
and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged.”
10. While dismissing the petition preferred by the
present appellant – original petitioner, the learned Single
Judge placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India (supra)
and also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench in the case of Dwarka appellant-Nagarpalika
(supra).
11. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the following
decisions, has reiterated the principles of substantive
nature of the roles of temporary service and continuous
service akin to be permanent employee as under:-
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
(i) In case of Vinod Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Union of India (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“In light of the reasons
recorded above, this
Court finds merit in the
appellants’ arguments
and holds that their
service conditions, as
evolved over time,
warrant a
reclassification from
temporary to regular
status. The failure to
recognize the
substantive nature of
their roles and their
continuous service akin
to permanent
employees runs counter
to the principles of
equity, fairness, and the
intent behind
employment
regulations.
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
(ii) In case of Jaggo Vs. Union Of
India (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under:
“19. It is evident from
the foregoing that the
appellants’ roles were
not only essential but
also indistinguishable
from those of regular
employees. Their
sustained contributions
over extended periods,
coupled with absence
of any adverse record,
warrant equitable
treatment and
regularization of their
services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by
their arbitrary
termination, amounts
to manifest injustice
and must be rectified.
22. The pervasive
misuse of temporary
employment contracts,
as exemplified in thisPage 18 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that
adversely affects
workers’ rights and job
security. In the private
sector, the rise of the
gig economy has led to
an increase in
precarious employment
arrangements, often
characterized by lack
of benefits, job
security, and fair
treatment. Such
practices have been
criticized for exploiting
workers and
undermining labour
standards. Government
institutions, entrusted
with upholding the
principles of fairness
and justice, bear an
even greater
responsibility to avoid
such exploitative
employment practices.
When public sector
entities engage in
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental
trends observed in the
gig economy but also
sets a concerning
precedent that can
erode public trust in
governmental
operations."
(iii) In case of Dharam Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of UP & Anr. (supra),
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
"Moreover, it must
necessarily be noted
that "ad-hocism"
thrives where
administration is
opaque. The State
Departments must
keep and produce
accurate
establishment
registers, muster rolls
and outsourcing
arrangements, and
they must explain,
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
with evidence, why
they prefer precarious
engagement over
sanctioned posts
where the work is
perennial. If
"constraint" is
invoked, the record
should show what
alternatives were
considered, why
similarly placed
workers were treated
differently, and how
the chosen course
aligns with Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the
human consequences
of prolonged
insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a
constitutional
discipline that should
inform every decision
affecting those who
keep public offices
running."
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
12. Considering the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge, it is evident that the present respondent
had already been reinstated in service with effect from
01.05.2007 and had worked for more than 240 days in a
year. In view of the said facts, the learned Industrial
Tribunal has rightly granted the benefits of regularisation
to the respondent.
13. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we are of the
considered view that no illegality has been committed by
the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge are just and proper and do not
require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal, being
devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/11/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026
undefined
15. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil
Application would also not survive. Therefore, the Civil
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
STANCY GOMES
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Feb 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 19 20:32:37 IST 2026
