Case Brief
Rupesh R. Gaonkar & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors.
Introduction (Approx. 120 Words)
The decision in Rupesh R. Gaonkar & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors. is an important judgment
concerning the regularisation of long-serving contractual workers employed through the
Public Works Department (PWD) Labour Supply Society in Goa. The case examined whether
the State Government could deny regularisation to workers after granting them temporary
status and repeatedly indicating its intention to absorb them into regular service. The
Supreme Court analysed the constitutional principles governing public employment,
particularly Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution, while also considering the scope of
the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The Court ultimately
held that fairness, equity and the conduct of the State justified the regularisation of the
appellants and directed the Government to implement a one-time scheme for their absorption.
Facts of the Case
The appellants were members of the Public Works Department Labour Supply Society
constituted by the Government of Goa. Between 1967 and 2003, they were engaged through
private contractors to perform various duties for the Public Works Department, including
work as helpers, pump attendants, electricians, watchmen, meter readers and work assistants.
To eliminate exploitation by private contractors, the State itself created the PWD Labour
Supply Society. The Society was headed by the Principal Chief Engineer of the PWD and
functioned as an instrument through which workers were supplied to the Department. The
Government intended that this arrangement would eventually lead to the regularisation of
eligible workers.
In July 2012, the Government resolved to formulate a policy for absorbing members of the
Society into the regular establishment of the PWD. A committee was constituted to verify the
eligibility and categorise workers according to the nature of duties performed by them.
Subsequently, in September 2013, the Finance Department and the Chief Minister approved a
proposal recommending that direct recruitment in the PWD be frozen until members of the
Society were absorbed. The proposal also contemplated that no new workers would be
recruited into the Society and that it would be dissolved after all existing members had been
regularised.
In February 2014, the Principal Chief Engineer issued an order granting temporary status to
eligible workers who had completed eight years of service. The order further stated that these
workers would be absorbed into the PWD as and when vacancies became available.
This order was placed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa in earlier litigation, where the
Advocate General assured the Court that the workers would be absorbed according to the
policy.
Despite these assurances, the Government later issued advertisements for direct recruitment
without considering the claims of the Society members. Aggrieved by the State’s failure to
honour its commitment, the appellants approached the High Court seeking regularisation.
The High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that their appointments were not made
through the prescribed recruitment process and therefore could not be regularised. The
workers challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
The principal legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether long-serving workers
engaged through a Government-created labour society could be denied regularisation after
the State had granted them temporary status and consistently expressed its intention to absorb
them.
The Court considered the constitutional principles relating to equality in public employment
under Articles 14 and 16, the provisions relating to public services under Article 309, and the
concept of the State acting as a model employer.
The Court also examined the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), which prohibits regularisation of illegal appointments while permitting, in limited
circumstances, the one-time regularisation of irregular appointments made against genuine
requirements. The Court further relied upon later decisions clarifying that Umadevi should
not be applied mechanically where workers have rendered long years of continuous service in
essential and permanent posts.
Contentions of the Parties
Contentions of the Appellants
The appellants argued that the PWD Labour Supply Society was not a private contractor but a
body established by the Government itself to eliminate exploitation of contract labour. Since
the Society functioned under the control of senior Government officials, it clearly reflected
the State’s intention to regularise its members.
They submitted that the order dated 7 February 2014 granting temporary status was issued
after Government approval and was placed before the High Court during earlier proceedings.
The Advocate General had also made a statement before the High Court assuring that
workers would be absorbed as vacancies arose. Therefore, the State could not subsequently
withdraw from its own commitment.
The appellants further argued that they had rendered uninterrupted service for several decades
while performing duties identical to those of regular employees. They contended that they
were not relying merely upon the doctrine of legitimate expectation but upon an actual
Government policy for regularisation.
Finally, they submitted that the High Court had wrongly relied upon Umadevi, since later
Supreme Court decisions had clarified that the State could frame schemes for regularisation
where workers had served continuously for long periods in essential posts.
Contentions of the Respondents
The State contended that the appellants were never Government employees but only members
of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Consequently, they had no legal
right to claim absorption into Government service.
It was argued that the order dated 7 February 2014 lacked the required approval of the
competent Government authorities and therefore was not legally binding.
The State relied heavily on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) to argue that appointments
made without following the constitutional recruitment process could not be regularised.
According to the respondents, the appellants had never been appointed against sanctioned
posts through open competition.
The respondents also submitted that directing regularisation would require creation of
numerous posts, impose a substantial financial burden on the Government and encourage
similar claims from other contractual workers throughout the State.
Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
The Court observed that the PWD Labour Supply Society had been created by the State itself
with the objective of preventing exploitation of contract labour and facilitating eventual
regularisation. It held that the Society was not an independent private contractor but an
institutional mechanism established by the Government.
The Court found that the Government’s conduct over several years consistently demonstrated
its intention to absorb the workers. The categorisation exercise, the proposal to freeze direct
recruitment, the grant of temporary status and the assurance given before the High Court all
indicated a clear policy of regularisation.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the State could rely upon alleged procedural
defects in obtaining Government approval for the 2014 order. It held that the Government
could not take advantage of its own internal administrative lapses after allowing workers to
continue in service for many years and after representing before the High Court that they
would be absorbed.
The Court further held that the principle laid down in Umadevi did not prevent regularisation
in the present case. It distinguished between illegal appointments and irregular appointments
and concluded that the appellants belonged to the latter category. Their engagement resulted
from a structured Government process rather than any clandestine or fraudulent backdoor
appointment.
The Court emphasised that a welfare State must act as a model employer. It observed that
denying regularisation to workers who had devoted decades of service while performing
essential functions would amount to continuing the very exploitation that the Labour Supply
Society had been created to eliminate.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to frame an appropriate
scheme within four months for regularising the appellants. If sufficient vacant sanctioned
posts were unavailable, the Government was directed to create supernumerary posts
exclusively for the affected workers. These posts would cease to exist once the concerned
employee retired or otherwise left service.
The Court declared that the appellants would be deemed regularised with effect from 9
February 2021, the date on which they had filed the writ petition in their personal capacity.
They were held entitled to consequential benefits such as seniority and pensionary benefits
from that date. However, the Court denied monetary arrears of salary for the period prior to
the date of the judgment.
The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional guarantees of equality in public
employment must be balanced with fairness towards employees who have served the
Government continuously for several decades under its own policy decisions. It also clarifies
that Umadevi cannot be used mechanically to justify prolonged exploitation of temporary
workers where the State itself has recognised their necessity and suitability for regular
employment.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2026
Citation: Rupesh R. Gaonkar & Ors. v. State of Goa & Ors., 2026 INSC 792.
