Bombay High Court Upholds End of COVID-Era Contract Jobs at KDMC

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 16.10.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds End of COVID-Era Contract Jobs at KDMC

The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions by temporary healthcare workers of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC), holding that COVID-19-era contractual appointments ended with the emergency for which they were created and did not create a right to regularisation.

Background: Pandemic Recruitment for an Urgent Health Need

During the COVID-19 pandemic, KDMC faced an acute shortage of healthcare personnel. To manage the increased patient load, the corporation issued advertisements and recruited Staff Nurses, Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs), Ward Boys and Ward Girls through walk-in interviews held in June and July 2020.

The appointments were expressly temporary and contractual. Workers were paid a fixed monthly amount, issued fresh appointment letters at intervals, and engaged solely to meet the health emergency created by the pandemic.

The group of petitioners included nurses, ANMs and ward staff who later challenged KDMC’s decision to end their engagement and obtain manpower through outsourcing.

What the Workers Sought

The petitioners challenged KDMC’s 19 April 2022 order discontinuing their services from 30 April 2022. They also contested the corporation’s March 2022 decision to outsource Health Department manpower for up to three years, or until regular recruitment took place.

They asked the Court to:

• Set aside the termination order and outsourcing decision;
• Regularise their services against available posts;
• Alternatively, continue them until regular posts were filled and consider them for those posts.

The workers argued that they were selected after a process, had served continuously, and were qualified for their positions. They also relied on the contention that one set of ad hoc workers should not be replaced by another.

KDMC’s Position

KDMC maintained that the appointments were exclusively for COVID-related work and carried clear terms that they would end when the pandemic subsided or COVID treatment facilities were closed.

The corporation also submitted that:

• The Health Department no longer required the same emergency staffing levels after COVID-19 cases declined;
• Continuing the temporary workforce imposed a significant financial burden;
• State conditions restricted establishment expenditure to 35%, with no additional funding for excess staffing;
• Outsourcing was a policy decision intended to manage staffing needs within financial constraints.

Court’s Reasoning: Employment Was Linked to the COVID Project

A Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the terms of recruitment were unambiguous. The advertisement described the jobs as temporary, contractual and limited to the duration of the pandemic.

The Court noted that the recruitment terms specifically provided that appointments would automatically end when the COVID situation reduced or relevant treatment facilities were closed. Candidates were also informed that they could not claim reappointment, entry into municipal service or service protection on the basis of these engagements.

The Bench treated the appointments as co-terminus with the COVID project. In other words, once the emergency purpose ended, the contractual service could end as well.

Why Regularisation Was Denied

The Court relied on established Supreme Court principles that temporary or project-based employees do not obtain a right to permanent employment merely because they have worked for a period of time.

It found that these appointments were not part of regular recruitment to permanent posts. The recruitment process had been designed for an emergency, and even retired personnel had been permitted to apply, underscoring the urgent and exceptional nature of the arrangement.

The Court also held that the workers’ continuation under an interim court order did not create any independent right to regularisation. Interim protection is always subject to the final outcome of the case.

Outsourcing Decision Upheld

The Court rejected the challenge to KDMC’s outsourcing policy. It held that the corporation was entitled to make staffing decisions in its operational and financial interest, particularly where the workers’ original contractual engagement had ended with the COVID contingency.

The petitioners’ reliance on decisions preventing replacement of ad hoc employees by other ad hoc employees did not apply on these facts, the Court said, because the appointments here were specifically tied to a pandemic-related requirement.

Final Outcome

The Court dismissed both writ petitions, upheld KDMC’s decision to discontinue the contractual Staff Nurses, ANMs, Ward Boys and Ward Girls, and rejected the request for regularisation.

The interim protection against termination granted in April 2022 was vacated. The Court also declined a request to continue that protection after the judgment, and disposed of the connected interim applications without costs.

Key Legal Takeaway

Temporary appointments made for a defined emergency or project may continue while that project exists, but they do not ordinarily create a right to permanent absorption or regularisation once the project or emergency ends.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com