Physically Challenged Workers Deputed To Civil Hospital Through NGO And Paid Commission Cannot Claim Regularisation Or Government Servant Status: Gujarat High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat, Single Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat, dismissed a petition filed by 14 physically challenged individuals working at case paper windows of a public hospital in Ahmedabad, seeking recognition as government servants and regularisation of services. Deputed through an NGO for the blind under a State arrangement since 2003 and paid solely on a per-case-paper commission basis, the petitioners claimed entitlement to permanent employment and regular pay scales. The court held that since none were directly appointed through prescribed recruitment rules, but through a third-party association, their status remained that of commission agents, making claims for civil servant status and service regularisation legally unsustainable.
The dispute traces its origin to a 2001 Government Resolution permitting the hospital to outsource case paper printing. In 2003, an NGO for the blind proposed deputing its handicapped members to manage case paper issuance, agreeing to oversee their appointment and supervision. The State accepted this proposal by way of a formal agreement, under which the deputed staff received Re.1 per case paper as commission, while the association retained the remainder toward printing costs.
The petitioners contended they were being exploited despite performing duties otherwise discharged by regular employees, and that their prolonged service created a legitimate expectation of permanency. They further argued that operating under hospital administration's instructions placed them under the State's direct control, entitling them to constitutional protection.
The State maintained there was no master-servant relationship, as selection, appointment, and supervision all rested with the NGO. The court agreed, noting that following hospital instructions was operationally necessary and did not establish administrative control, while distinguishing precedents cited by the petitioners as involving direct State engagement, which was absent here.
The court observed that the petitioners were neither engaged as daily wagers nor as full or part-timers by the respondents, and that their initial appointment at the windows of the Civil Hospital was pursuant to the agreement entered between the respondent and the Blind People's Association. It further recorded that as per the agreement, the said Association deputed the petitioners at the windows of the Civil Hospital for doing the job of issuance and maintenance of case papers, and that "only commission of Rs.1/- would be payable to the petitioners per case paper."
On the question of master-servant relationship, the court stated that "no master-servant relationship has been created between the petitioners and the respondent," noting that the Blind People's Association had agreed that the appointment of employees would be done by the Association and their work would be supervised by their Association as well.
Addressing the petitioners' claim of being under direct administrative control, the court observed that "there is nothing on record to show and substantiate the case of the petitioners that they are within the direct control of the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Such instructions are required to be followed and obeyed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, is undisputedly one of the biggest hospitals in India providing various medical facilities to a large number of patients every day; then, considering the nature of the work of the petitioners, i.e., issuance/maintenance of case papers for outdoor and indoor patients, they cannot be allowed to act in their own way, including the opening and closing of windows at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad."
On the claim for civil servant status, the court stated that "since there is no master-servant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent, the prayers made in this petition in regard to seeking declaration that the petitioners may be declared as Civil Servants/Government Servants cannot be granted."
On the inapplicability of Chennai Port Trust v. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association, (2018) 6 SCC 202, the court recorded that "the facts of the said decision are not identical to the case on hand, as there is nothing on record to show that any administrative control or power of imposing any penalty as per disciplinary rules is available with the respondent in a case of any misconduct by the petitioners."
On Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2025 SC 3897, the court stated that "the petitioners herein are undoubtedly cannot be treated as daily wagers as they are neither receiving daily wages/fixed wages nor directly engaged by the respondent."
On the question of regularisation, the court referred to the settled legal position and recorded that High Courts exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution "will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts."
The court finally stated that since none of the petitioners were directly appointed through due process and were receiving remuneration in the form of commission, "their status remains that of 'commission agents' rather than employees in any form."
The Court directed, “In view of the foregoing observations, discussions and reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition and as such, no reliefs as prayed by the petitioners in this petition can be granted. Since the petition is sans merit, it requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged, albeit no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anand B. Gogia, Ms. Muskan A. Gogia, Mr. B.B. Gogia
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Rami, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Mamnesh Mahendrabhai Bhavsar & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:6931
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 10016 of 2018
Bench: Justice Maulik J. Shelat
