SUPRIYA PARSHURAM SAYNOD v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Regularization of Contractual Employees - High Court Directs State to Create Posts for Perennial Work and Upholds Binding Precedent of Coordinate Benches for Similarly Situated Employees.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:8045-DB
Decision Date: 23-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 12 and Article 226; Service Jurisprudence - Regularization of Service; Doctrine of Precedent - Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions; Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) Guidelines
- Facts: The petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis between 2012 and 2014 under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). They had been working continuously since their initial appointments, though the State administration provided intermittent "technical breaks" to prevent them from claiming permanency. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the creation of permanent posts and regularization of their services, asserting that the nature of their work was perennial. They relied on a previous coordinate bench decision of the same High Court in Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra, which had granted similar reliefs to identically situated employees.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The State opposed the petitions, requesting a referral to a larger bench on the grounds that the precedent relied upon was per incuriam.
- Issue: Whether the High Court can direct the State to create posts and regularize contractual employees who have served for long periods in perennial roles, and whether a coordinate bench is bound by a prior decision involving similarly situated employees.
- Holding: Yes. The Court allowed the petitions, directing the State to create posts and regularize the petitioners' services with retrospective effect from their initial joining dates, including consequential benefits and restricted arrears of salary.
- Reasoning: The Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, noting that a coordinate bench must follow the decision of an earlier bench of equal strength unless it is manifestly erroneous. It rejected the State's argument that post creation is an exclusive executive domain, citing recent Supreme Court rulings like Jaggo v. Union of India and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., which held that executive decisions regarding post sanctions are not immune from judicial scrutiny if the work is perennial. The Court observed that the PMGSY implementing society qualifies as "State" under Article 12 and that a "welfare Government" should not adopt tactics like "technical breaks" to deny permanency. Discrimination between similarly situated employees based on which bench hears their case was deemed contrary to service jurisprudence.
🔒 For Members Only