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

Order Date: 14th October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: 70+ temporary health workers (staff nurses/ANM and ward boys) listed individually in the petition, aged 20‑46, residing in Thane district.
  • 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 quash of the corporation’s termination order dated 19 April 2022 and the decision dated 22 March 2022 to outsource health‑department manpower, and alternatively seeking regularisation of their services.
  • Background: During the COVID‑19 pandemic, the corporation advertised temporary contractual posts for Staff Nurse/ANM and Ward Boys (walk‑in interviews on 11‑12‑30‑June and 1‑July 2020). Successful candidates received three‑month appointment letters, renewed periodically. In April 2022 the corporation decided to discontinue these services and, on 22 March 2022, resolved to outsource manpower for three years or until regular posts were filled. An order dated 19 April 2022 terminated the petitioners’ services effective 2 Feb 2022 to 30 Apr 2022.
  • Interim relief: Petitioners obtained an ad‑interim stay of the termination order on 29 April 2022 (both petitions). They also filed an unfair‑labour‑practice complaint (ULP No. 40/2022) in the Thane Industrial Court, which initially restrained termination (order dated 21 Feb 2022) but was later vacated by the Industrial Tribunal on 21 April 2022.
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by Mr. Kishor Patil; Respondents by Mr. A. S. Rao and the State of Maharashtra by Mr. P. P. Kakde (AGP) and Mr. A. R. Deolekar (AGP).
  • Legal arguments: Petitioners argued that their contractual appointments, made after due process, should be regularised, citing the principle that ad‑hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad‑hoc employees. Respondents contended that the appointments were purely contractual, limited to the pandemic, and that outsourcing was a lawful policy decision, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi; Patel Savan Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat; Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. DGP, Assam; etc.).
  • Court’s analysis: The judgment examined the advertisement clauses, confirming that appointments were expressly temporary, co‑terminus with the COVID‑19 project, with no entitlement to regularisation or service protection. The court reiterated Supreme Court authority that ad‑hoc or contractual appointments tied to a specific project end with the project’s conclusion, and that courts cannot compel regularisation absent a statutory or procedural violation. The court also noted the corporation’s financial constraints and the statutory ceiling (35 % of establishment expenditure) that prompted outsourcing.

Final Outcome

  • The petitions were dismissed in their entirety.
  • The ad‑interim orders dated 29 April 2022 were vacated.
  • No costs were awarded; each party bears its own costs.
  • The corporation’s decision to terminate the petitioners’ services and to outsource health‑department manpower was upheld as lawful.

Topics: Legal – Labour Law, Municipal Administration