Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 14th October 2026 (Reserved on 22nd September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: A collective of 70 individuals (including 35 staff nurses/ANMs and 35 ward boys) employed on a contractual basis in the Health Department of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC). Notable petitioners include Manisha Santosh Gaikwad, Madhuri Sawant, etc., and ward boys such as Sagar Ramchandra Pawar, Rushikesh Madhukar Avhad, among others.
  • Respondents: 1) Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, 2) Municipal Commissioner, 3) Assistant Commissioner (General Administration), 4) Chief Medical Officer, 5) State of Maharashtra (through Principal Secretary).
  • Nature of proceedings: Two writ petitions (W.P. No. 5395/2022 and W.P. No. 8812/2022) filed under Article 226 seeking (a) quashing of the termination order dated 19 April 2022 (for staff nurses/ANMs) and the outsourcing decision dated 22 March 2022, (b) regularisation of services, or alternatively, a stay on termination until regular posts are filled.
  • Background: During the COVID‑19 pandemic, KDMC advertised temporary contractual posts for Staff Nurse/ANM and Ward Boy (walk‑in interviews on 11‑12‑30‑June and 1‑July 2020). Appointments were issued on a three‑month renewable basis with a fixed monthly salary. In April 2022 the corporation decided to discontinue these services and, on 22 March 2022, resolved to outsource manpower for three years or until vacant posts were filled.
  • Prior litigation: Petitioners filed ULP No. 40 of 2022 in the Thane Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices; the court restrained termination on 21 Feb 2022, but later vacated the interim order and dismissed the complaint on 21 April 2022.
  • Interim relief: The KDMC Coordinating Bench stayed the termination order on 29 April 2022, directing that the impugned order be not executed pending final disposal.
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by Mr. Kishor Patil; Respondents by Mr. A. S. Rao and AGP Mr. P. P. Kakde on behalf of the State.
  • Arguments: Petitioners contended that their contractual appointments, made after due process, should be regularised given the existence of >150 vacant health posts and that ad‑hoc employees cannot be replaced by other ad‑hoc employees. Respondents argued the appointments were purely contractual for pandemic exigencies, that outsourcing was a lawful policy response, and cited Supreme Court precedents (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi; Patel Savan Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat) supporting termination of temporary staff once the emergency ends.
  • Legal analysis: The Court examined the advertisement clauses (temporary nature, automatic termination upon pandemic abatement, no entitlement to regularisation) and held that the corporation’s decision was within its statutory powers. The Court reiterated Supreme Court jurisprudence that ad‑hoc or contractual appointments tied to a specific project or scheme terminate with the project and do not create a right to regularisation, except where the employee has served >10 years in a sanctioned post (Umadevi exception), which was not applicable.

Final Outcome

  • The petitions are dismissed in their entirety.
  • The ad‑interim orders dated 29 April 2022 are vacated.
  • No regularisation or continuation of services is ordered; the corporation may proceed with outsourcing as decided.
  • Both parties bear their own costs.
  • The Court declined the petitioners’ post‑pronouncement request to reinstate the interim order.

Topics: Labor Law, Municipal Health Services