Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bench of Hon'ble Justices G. S. Kulkarni & Dr. Neela Gokhale)

Order Date: 14 October 2026 (Reserved on 29 September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: 38 petitioners (seasonal clerks, peons and sweepers) vs. Union of India (Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs) and Haj Committee of India (CEO, Haj Committee Act 2002).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashal of termination order dated 25 November 2023 issued by the Haj Committee.
  • Background: Petitioners had been employed on a seasonal basis since 2009, performing computer work, passport assistance, and other services related to Haj pilgrimage arrangements. They alleged that work had increased post‑COVID, that their roles were effectively permanent, and that they were terminated without hearing, violating natural justice.
  • Petitioners' Claims: (i) Termination was arbitrary; (ii) No opportunity of being heard; (iii) Work is continuous and should be treated as permanent; (iv) Wage disparity with permanent staff; (v) Request for reinstatement and declaration that they not be replaced by new contractual employees.
  • Respondents' Contentions: Employment was expressly seasonal, governed by Haj Committee Rules (Rule 16) and Section 44 of the Haj Committee Act. No legal right to regularisation exists; contracts ended by efflux of time; new contractual posts advertised were for New Delhi office and unrelated to Mumbai petitioners.
  • Interim Order (18 Nov 2024): Court directed Haj Committee to consider petitioners for re‑engagement based on seniority if it chose to hire seasonal staff, emphasizing balance of convenience and preventing starvation.
  • Contempt Petition: Petitioners alleged the Committee issued a fresh notification for new hires contrary to the interim order. Deputy CEO Dr. Sadakat Ali apologized unconditionally; contempt petition disposed.
  • Statutory Provisions Cited: Section 16 (appointment of CEO and other employees), Section 44 (rule‑making power), Rule 16 (temporary appointments, termination provisions). The Court noted Rule 16 does not empower regularisation of seasonal employees.
  • Recruitment Rules (10 Feb 2006): Clarified distinction between seasonal clerks and lower‑division clerks; seasonal posts are not permanent and may be filled only after completing at least four Haj seasons, with 10% promotion from Class‑D staff.
  • Key Judicial Precedents Cited: State of Maharashtra v. Anita (2016) 8 SCC 293 – contractual appointments do not confer permanent service rights; Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. UT Chandigarh (2004) 2 SCC 130 – sympathy alone cannot ground relief.
  • Resolution (19 Oct 2024): Haj Committee resolved that the 45 terminated seasonal staff could be re‑engaged if they withdrew the petition, indicating an arm‑twisting strategy but lacking legal force.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that seasonal employees have no legal right to regularisation or continuation of service.
  • The termination order dated 25 Nov 2023 stands; the Haj Committee may engage fresh seasonal staff as per its discretion.
  • No costs were awarded to either side.

Topics: Employment Law, Seasonal Contracts