(1) MCA767.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.767/2025 (FOR REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.4316/2024 (D) Smt. Savita d/o Vasantrao Khadse (after marriage Savita w/o Bhagwan Tale) .VS. Central Government of India, through Secretary & Director General, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. C. J. Dhumane, Advocate for non applicants. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 Heard. 2. On 28.08.2026, following order was passed: Heard. 2] The Counsel for the applicant is relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735] to contend that the issue involved is, in a way, covered by this judgment. The said judgment, however, was delivered few days prior to the judgment sought to be reviewed. She further submits that despite due diligence, she could not lay hands on this judgment and was, therefore, not cited before the Bench. 3] The Counsel for the respondents seeks time to go through the aforesaid judgment. Granted. 4] The parties shall file compilation of judgment/s, which they intend to rely on, within one week. We will not permit the parties to tender across the Bench the judgments or documents. No further adjournment will be granted on such count. 5] List on 11/9/2026.” 3. Mr. C. J. Dhumane, learned counsel for non applicants- respondents submits that the judgment sought to be reviewed is based on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. .Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and, therefore, is rendered on a binding precedent. He submits that (2) MCA767.25 the review is not permissible in such cases and the judgment cited by the applicant will have no bearing. 4. We are surprised to note the stand taken by the respondents, who otherwise are supposed to be an ideal litigant. We say so because in the case of Dharam Singh and Ors. .Vs. State of U.P. and anr.; [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735], the Supreme Court has considered Umadevi, so also other judgments, which were referred to by the Division Bench in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The Supreme Court commenced the judgment in following words: “When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.” 5. As could be seen, the emphasis is upon the fairness at the hands of the institutions run by the respondents. The Court certified that public employment should be organized with fairness, reasoned decision making and respect for the dignity of work. This finding is rendered in the light of services availed of the appellants therein where their services were taken day after day but on contractual basis. Accordingly, the Supreme Court commenced the judgment saying that when public institutions depend day after day on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. (3) MCA767.25 6. In the case before us, the applicant was appointed as Junior Technical Associate. Her services were continued for 19 years. In fact, she has been promoted to the post of Senior Technical Associate. She is now transferred to Dehradun. 7. Thus, services which were availed on contractual basis have been considered for promotion as well. Despite such status, the respondents intend to continue the services on contractual basis. 8. Such a stand, according to us, will have to be tested in the light of Dharam Singh’s case. In other words, we find it a good ground to allow the application so as to afford an opportunity to both the sides to put forth their contentions in the light of judgment in Dharam Singh. Accordingly, the application is partly allowed. Judgment dated 04.09.2025 is recalled. Writ Petition No.4316/2024 is restored to file. Registry shall list the petition before the appropriate Bench. 9. The application is disposed of. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/09/2026 14:57:50