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

Order Date: 14th October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Dozens of individuals (staff nurses, Auxiliary Nurse Midwives and ward boys) employed by the Health Department of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC). Notable petitioners include Manisha Santosh Gaikwad, Madhuri Sawant, Mrunali Chandekar, etc., and a separate group of ward boys led by Sagar Ramchandra Pawar, Rushikesh Madhukar Avhad, etc.
  • 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 – Writ Petition No. 5395 of 2022 (staff nurses/ANMs) and Writ Petition No. 8812 of 2022 (ward boys) – filed under Article 226 seeking quash of termination orders dated 19 April 2022 and direction for regularisation of services.
  • Background: During the COVID‑19 pandemic, KDMC faced a severe staff shortage in its hospitals. An advertisement was issued (June 2020) for temporary contractual appointments of Staff Nurses/ANMs and Ward Boys. Candidates were called for walk‑in interviews on 11‑12‑30 June and 1 July 2020, selected, and issued three‑month appointment letters on a fixed monthly salary. Appointments were renewed every three months.
  • Termination: In April 2022, KDMC decided to discontinue the services of the contractual staff. An order dated 19 April 2022 terminated their services effective 30 April 2022. Earlier, on 22 March 2022, KDMC decided to outsource manpower for the Health Department for three years or until regular posts were filled, whichever occurred first.
  • Industrial Court Proceedings: Petitioners filed a complaint (ULP No. 40 of 2022) before the Industrial Court, Thane, alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and seeking absorption as permanent employees. The Industrial Court, on 21 February 2022, restrained KDMC from terminating the petitioners. The Industrial Tribunal, on 21 April 2022, vacated that interim order and dismissed the complaint.
  • Interim Relief in High Court: The High Court, on 29 April 2022, stayed the termination order (prayer clause (g)) pending final disposal of the writ petitions.
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by Mr. Kishor Patil. Respondents were represented by Mr. A. S. Rao (Corporation) and Mr. P. P. Kakde, AGP for the State of Maharashtra.
  • Key Arguments:
  • Petitioners argued that their appointments were made after due process, they had continuously served, and there were over 150 vacant regular posts; therefore, they should be regularised.
  • Respondents contended that the appointments were purely contractual, limited to the COVID‑19 emergency, and that the corporation was within its rights to outsource manpower and terminate the contracts.
  • The corporation cited Supreme Court precedents (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi; Patel Savan Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat) supporting the principle that ad‑hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad‑hoc employees and that termination is permissible when the emergency ends.
  • Advertisement Terms: The advertisement expressly stated that appointments were for the duration of the COVID‑19 pandemic, would terminate automatically when the pandemic abated, and that candidates could not claim re‑appointment or service protection through court or government.
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • The court examined the advertisement and found the intent to be temporary, co‑terminus with the pandemic project.
  • Citing multiple Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, 2009 SCC 611; ATMA Employee's Welfare Association v. Union of India, 2016; Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485), the court affirmed that contractual, project‑specific appointments end with the project and do not create a right to regularisation.
  • The court rejected the petitioners' reliance on other judgments, finding them distinguishable because those cases involved different factual contexts.
  • The court held that an interim order does not create a vested right; it is subject to the final decision.
  • Final Outcome:
  • The petitions were dismissed.
  • The ad‑interim orders dated 29 April 2022 were vacated.
  • No costs were awarded to either side.
  • The court discharged the rule and ordered disposal of any pending interim applications.

Topics: Employment Law, Municipal Health Services