Bombay High Court
Shri.Sanjay Barikrao Patil vs Superintendent Agri Officer Nashik on 9 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-AS:11733-DB 15-LPA-322-13.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2026.03.10
19:17:10 +0530
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2001
Shri.Sanjay Barikrao Patil ...Appellant
Versus
Superintendent Agri Officer
Nashik ...Respondents
_______
Mr. V.P.Kumbhar a/w. Mr. R.S.Phupale i/b. MR. N.V.Bandiwadekar, for Appellant.
Ms. Neha Bhide GP a/w. MR. O.A.Chandurkar Addl.G.P.
a/w. Ms. R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent - State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 9 MARCH 2026
P.C.
1. The challenge in the present Appeal is to an order dated 20th March
2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1300 of 2001 filed
by the Petitioner. At the outset, the said order is required to be noted here:
On behalf of the Petitioner it is contended that this Court by order dated 7th
December, 2001 had directed the Respondents to file an affidavit. Time was
sought. Yet till date no affidavit has been filed to disclose as to whether the
appointment was under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, At the highest
on failure to file the affidavit as directed by the Court adverse inference can
be drawn against the Respondents. The question yet still remains whether
the orders of the Courts below are liable to be interfered with. The sum and
substance of the challenge by the Petitioner is that his employment was not
under EGS Scheme but was a permanent employment considering the letter
of appointment itself. Once that being the case his termination on account of
the closure of EGS Scheme is arbitrary and the order is liable to be set aside
and the Petitioner reinstated in service. In the first instance it must be borne
in mind that in so far as the Government service is concerned, there must be
a post available against which a party can be directed to be reinstated. In the
instant case from the letter of appointment itself it is clear that the
appointment of the Petitioner was for a period for 11 months. The Petitioner
was cross examined before the Labour Court therein the Petitioner admitted
Page 1 of 4
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:57:09 :::
15-LPA-322-13.DOC
that his appointment was for a specific period of 11 months for Drought
Prone Area Programme Scheme. The Petitioner no doubt denied that he was
not working in EGS. Therefore, what is material to note is that the
Petitioner's appointment was purely for 11 months. It was not against a
permanent vacancy or a permanent post, but against a post under the
Scheme framed thereto. It would, therefore, be immaterial whether the
Scheme is EGS or not. The Petitioner will be entitled to relief only in the
event he shows that the appointment was against an available post, which in
the instant case is not so. There may be some omissions of the Courts below.
However, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has to see justice of the matter. In the instant case the
Respondent State cannot be saddled with the employees who were taken on
a Scheme and the appointment was to last for a period of 11 months only.
Considering that no interference called for. Petition rejected.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused
the record. It appears that the Petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1985
under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The appointment was merely
for the purposes of the said scheme and was not against any vacancy or regular post
created by the State Government in the Agricultural Department. Thus, the
appointment was co-terminus with the Employment Guarantee Scheme, under
which the Petitioner was appointed by inviting applications through the
Employment Exchange. It appears that the State Government subsequently
stopped funding the Employment Guarantee Scheme. As the appointment of the
Appellant was only for a period of 11 months, as seen from the appointment order,
by virtue of Clause 7 of the appointment order, the Appellant's appointment came
to an end.
3. Challenging such discharge and contending it to be a termination, the
Appellant approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint of Unfair Labour
Practices No. 315 of 1987. The said complaint was disposed of by the learned
Labour Court by its order dated 17th February 1998, whereby it was held that the
complaint itself was not maintainable, on the ground that the Employment
Guarantee Scheme was not an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The operative part of the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court reads thus:
Page 2 of 4
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:57:09 :::
15-LPA-322-13.DOC
ORDER
1. The complaint being not maintainable and as this Court has no Jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaints, as the work of the respondents under EGS on which the complainants were working is not an industry within the meaning of Sec.2(j) of the I.D.Act, 1947, the complaints are dismissed. However, as the complainants have already been absorbed in the employment of the respondents since 1992 and getting wages accordingly, the respondents should not disturb the absorption of the complainant in the services of the respondents.
2. No order as to costs.
5. It is the aforesaid order which came to be assailed by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge (supra) in the writ petition in question on which the impugned order is passed. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge that once an appointment was granted to the Appellant under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS), it was certainly not an appointment on a regular post created by the State Government in the office cadre of the Superintendent Agricultural Officer, Nashik. Hence, the Appellant had no entitlement to seek regularization, having been appointed to a post which was ad-hoc in nature and created only for the purposes of the EGS, and more particularly when the appointment was admittedly for a period of 11 months.
6. The contention urged on behalf of the Appellant that merely because the Appellant was continued in such employment for more than 240 days hence it would entitle the Appellant to a regularisation/ regular appointment in our opinion, is not well founded. This in view of the clear findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court firstly that a mere appointment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme cannot be construed to mean that the scheme could be constituted as an "industry" (employer) within the meaning of the I.D.Act, and secondly when the scheme was merely an arrangement permitted by the State Government considering the exigencies of work available funding was made by the State Government.
7. In any event, as observed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, the Appellant has already been absorbed since the year 1992. The question therefore was whether the period between the year 1986 and the date of such Page 3 of 4 Mane ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:57:09 ::: 15-LPA-322-13.DOC absorption can be taken into consideration, so as to award any benefit of regular employment to the Appellant.
8. In our opinion, considering the nature of the appointment, the Appellant would not be entitled to any benefit of the said period of service to be taken into consideration, for any purpose including to consider the date of deemed appointment to the year 1996, nor can such ad-hoc services form the basis for seeking regularization or permanent appointment in the absence of a clear post being available at the relevant time. Considering that in the year 1992, the Appellant unconditionally accepted an appointment/absorption.
9. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly devoid of merits. It is hence rejected. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 4 of 4 Mane ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:57:09 :::