Dr. Reema Saha vs The State of Tripura and Ors.
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010012242026
Page 1 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.102 of 2026
Dr. Reema Saha, W/o Sri Uttam Kumar Debnath, R/o Pragati Road,
Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN-
799001
.........Appellant(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura to be represented by the Secretary, Department of
Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Chairman (Principal Secretary), Dept. of Forests, Govt. of Tripura,
NRMST, Aranya Bhavan, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006
3. The Director, Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Shilpa Udyog
Bhavan, Khejurbagan, Agartala, Tripura, PIN-799006
4. The Manager, Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Shilpa Udyog
Bhavan, Khejurbagan, Agartala, Tripura, PIN-799006
5. The CEO & P.D., IGDC, CRFLAT Project, PMA, Hatipara, Gandhigram,
West Tripura, PIN-799012
6. The Member Secretary, Society for Entrepreneurship Development
(SoFED), ITI Road, Indranagar, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006
7. Shri S. Prabhu, CEO and P.D., IGDC, CRFLAT Project, PMA, Hatipara,
Gandhigram, West Tripura, PIN-799012
8. Dr. Biplab Brahma (STO-MIS), posted in the O/o the CEO & P.D., IGDC,
CRFLAT Project, PMA, Hatipara, Gandhigram, West Tripura, PIN-799012
.........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor Narayan Bhattacharyya, G.A.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Date of hearing : 07.10.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 11.11.2026
Whether Fit for Reporting : YES
TRHC010012242026
Page 2 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the
judgment dt.18.05.2026 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.660 of
2025.
Background Facts:
2. The Society for Entrepreneurship Development [“SoFED”, for
short ] is a fully sponsored society of the State of Tripura, and respondent No.6
is its Member Secretary. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura is the
ex-officio Chairman of the said Society and the Manager, Directorate of
Industries & Commerce is the ex-officio Member Secretary of the said
Society.
3. Admittedly, there was an Indo-German Development
Co-operation Project (IGDC project) called “Climate Resilient Forest
Landscapes in Tripura” (CREFLAT). The project is being implemented by
funds contributed by KfW and the govt. of Tripura. As per the Project
operations manual this project is from 2020-2027 and the project will be
delivered over seven year though a Project Management Authority.
4. As per the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.1-4, SoFED
is part of the Project Management Authority, and this agency operates under
the administrative supervision of the Chief Executive Officer and Project
Director, IGDC project (respondent No.5). Respondent No.7 is the current
incumbent in the said post.
5. Vide an appointment letter dt.10.02.2021, SoFED appointed the
appellant as Project Implementing Officer (PIO) for the Indo-German
TRHC010012242026
Page 3 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
Development Cooperation Project (CREFLAT) on contract basis initially for a
period of 11(eleven) months from her date of joining with a monthly contract
gross pay of Rs.80,000/-, and her services was placed under the CEO and
Project Director of the said project at Agartala.
6. The terms and conditions of her appointment are mentioned in
the said appointment letter.
7. Though the appointment letter issued on 10.02.2021 appointing
the appellant as Project Implementing Officer for the said project was on
contract basis for only 11(eleven) months, there is no dispute that it was
extended subsequently vide extension orders dt.04.12.2023 and 04.12.2024.
8. The respondent No.5 had even issued a certificate on 16.08.2022
stating that the appellant was working in the externally aided IGDC project
(CREFLAT) with effect from 15.02.2021 in the capacity of Project
Implementing Officer, and she was performing a varied of duties assigned to
her from time to time. After setting out the duties performed by her till that
date, it was stated that she prepared several project reports of which two had
been considered by the North Easter Council (NEC) for approval/funding
during her tenure in the CREFLAT project, and that in view of her
extraordinary performance, she was recommended for the Chief Minister‟s
Excellence Award for the year 2021-22. It is further stated that the appellant
was sincere, hardworking and bears a trustworthy moral character, and the
certificate was being issued to her as a testimony in support of her working
experience in the IGDC (CREFLAT) project.
9. Notably an office order dt.14.05.2025 was also issued by the
respondent No.5 entrusting the following duties to her:
TRHC010012242026
Page 4 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
“1. Preparation of project plan and operation, annual planning,
implementing and monitoring the project.
2. Preparation of Technical Handbooks/guidelines
3. Prepare GB Meeting, Executive Body Meeting, DPGB
meetings and resolutions and compilation of their outputs,
preparing meeting minutes of GB/EB Meetings, Departmental
meeting, Review meeting etc.
4. Coordinate with project stake holders such as NRMST,
TTADC.
5. Secretarial Assistance, Assembly/Parliament questions,
preparing meeting materials for all meetings inside and outside
PMA.
6. Preparation of all the activities of 5 Project Outputs.
7. Activity monitoring of all 5 subdivisions.
8. Preparation of All concept Notes.
9. Manage and Maintain the records of all sanction Memo
10. Any other works assigned by the CEO & PD and APO. ”
10. By another Office Order dt.14.5.2025, the appellant was also
entrusted with job of monitoring activity of 5 sub-divisions.
11. However, subsequently the respondent No.7, who was the CEO
and Project Director of the IGDC (CREFLAT) project, issued an office order
dt.28.08.2025 stating that responsibilities mentioned in the said office order
dt.14.05.2025 had been assigned to the STO-MIS instead of the appellant. No
reason was indicated therein why this was done.
12. By another order dt.04.09.2025 issued by respondent No.7, the
appellant was asked to assist the Addl. Project Officer, one Atanu Saha, who
was junior to appellant.
13. Another Memorandum dt.25.9.2025 was issued by respondent
No.6 (SoFED) extending her tenure w.e.f. 8.9.2025 to 25.9.2025 by giving an
TRHC010012242026
Page 5 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
artificial break of one day. The said memo stated that her tenure was extended
only up to 25.9.2025 and not thereafter.
14. The appellant gave a representation on 30.09.2025 to the
Principal Secretary, Forests (respondent No.2) and respondents No.6 and 7
stating that she had been subjected to humiliation, abuse and gender
discrimination by the respondent No.7.
She stated that the office order dt.04.09.2025 asking her to assist
the Additional Project Officer for routine duties and all other tasks assigned,
would make her work with her junior since the Additional Project Officer post
is a lesser post than the PIO post to which she had been appointed.
She alleged that the respondent No.7, after assuming office, had
stated in several open meetings that he doubts her potential because she was a
female employee, and that he dislikes her and that he would not allow her to
work under him, and she should be removed as the PIO of the project, and
should be replaced by a male staff.
She contended that the project is perennial in nature, and the
project is continuing, and the tenure of other employees was being extended
from time to time.
She alleged that in the Memorandum dt.25.09.2025 issued by the
respondent No.6 it has been stated that her tenure had been extended with
effect from 08.09.2025 to 25.09.2025 and that her tenure was extended only
up to 25.09.2025. She stated that she apprehended that her tenure would not be
extended because she protested against the gender biasness of the respondent
No.7, and also raised issues regarding selection and appointment of certain
persons who she considered unsuitable for running the project.
TRHC010012242026
Page 6 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
She contended that her engagement in the project was
co-terminus with the project, and she requested the respondents to look into
the matter and to ensure that her tenure is renewed, and she is not replaced by
other contractual staff.
15. We may point out that a recruitment notification was issued on
05.11.2025 by SoFED proposing to fill up the post of PIO and some other
posts also on purely contract basis of a period of 6 or 11 months.
WP(C) No.660/2025:
16. Appellant then filed WP(C) No.660/2025 in this Court
contending inter alia that her services had not been renewed by the
respondents after 25.09.2025, and such discontinuation was only for the
purpose of replacing her by another person under a different contract, and that
the respondents are acting unfairly and unjustly in discontinuing her services
with effect from 26.09.2025.
17. She contended that one contractual employee cannot be replaced
by another contractual employee, and that the respondents‟ conduct in
discontinuing her services was arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide.
18. She also alleged discrimination saying that only her services were
not being renewed as PIO, though the contract of all similarly situated
contractual staffs had been renewed by the respondents.
19. She reiterated her allegation that she was subjected to gender
discrimination by the respondent No.7, who was the CEO of the project in his
official capacity, and he had clearly expressed that he does not like female
employees, and he would make the project free of female staff.
TRHC010012242026
Page 7 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
20. She contended that there was no performance issue involved.
According to her, Clause 2.7.2 of the POM explicitly stated that continuity of
project staff until completion of the project period was a crucial requirement
for successful implementation of the project, especially for critical positions
like PIO and other posts like Technical Officers / Technical Assistants, and
provisions of certain stage wise incentives would be made to ensure their
retention throughout the entire project period.
21. She alleged that the respondents had falsely alleged non-
performance by her of her duties as the cause for non-renewal of her contract,
and the termination of engagement of the appellant was violative of Art.14 of
the Constitution of India.
22. She stated that the respondent No.8 was engaged in her place as
the Project Implementing Officer though he was only an STO-MIS, and to
accommodate him, the services of the appellant had been disengaged.
23. In the Writ Petition, she therefore sought a direction to the
respondents to reappoint/re-engage her in the post of PIO for the IGDC
(CREFLAT) project during the life of the said project as long as the said
project is being implemented contending that her engagement was co-terminus
with the scheme. She also prayed that her services be renewed/extended till
regularization of her service or during the lifetime of the IGDC project
(CREFLAT).
24. She also sought for quashing of the recruitment notification
dt.05.11.2025 issued by the sixth respondent - Society.
TRHC010012242026
Page 8 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
The stand of respondents No.1 to 4:
25. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed a Counter Affidavit refuting the said
contentions.
26. It is contended by the respondents No.1 to 4 that there are
disputed facts arising for consideration in the Writ Petition, and so the Writ
Petition should be dismissed in limine .
27. It is contended that though the appellant may have a locus standi
under Art.226 to file the Writ Petition, she has no enforceable legal right in
her favour, and that she had failed to show violation of any legal or
constitutional right, particularly when her engagement was purely contractual
and outsourced.
28. It is contended that she was not engaged directly in the office of
the respondent No.5, but was deployed as an outsourced contractual
manpower through the respondent No.6, which was engaged as part of the
PMA operating under the administrative supervision of the office of the
respondent No.5.
29. According to respondents No.1 to 4, her engagement was purely
contractual executed between her and the outsourcing agency, and her
deployment was subject to the terms, conditions and performance standards
applicable to Project Management Agency personnel, not like regular
employees or directly engaged staff of respondent No.5.
30. According to the respondents, her role in the project was only in
her capacity as an outsourced project management agency functionary, and
she cannot claim that she was serving directly under the respondent No.5 in
any substantive, statutory or service related sense.
TRHC010012242026
Page 9 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
31. It is contended that she had raised several serious allegations
against senior officers and other staff members in the Forest Department
during her previous tenure at both the office of the DCF Research and the
office of the Director of NCE, and opinions from senior Forest Department
officers regarding her allegations and work performance are documented and
maintained in the respective offices.
32. Respondents contend that even if SoFED is considered a „State‟
under Art.12, appellant‟s engagement under SoFED was purely contractual,
tenure based and governed exclusively by the outsourced manpower
framework, and such contractual engagements do not confer any right to
continuation, nor can they be enforced as regular service matters under
Art.226.
33. According to the respondents, the appointment letter
dt.10.02.2021 issued by SoFED to the appellant indicated that she was
engaged purely as an outsourced contractual personnel for 11(eleven) months
for deployment in the IGDC (CREFLAT) project, and the appointment was
not made by respondent No.5, nor did it create any employer-employee
relationship with the fifth respondent.
34. It is also contended that in 2022, based on complaints received
from members of the PMA regarding her misbehaviour, the SoFED granted
only a three-months‟ extension beyond initial 11(eleven) months‟ tenure.
35. Subsequently upon her own request, the then CEO and Project
Director of IGDC (CREFLAT) recommended to SoFED for a further one-year
extension, and that she continued only as an outsourced contractual personnel
with no employer-employee relationship with the IGDC (CREFLAT) project.
TRHC010012242026
Page 10 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
36. The certificate dt.16.08.2022 issued to the appellant is not denied,
but it is contended that satisfactory performance or appreciation notes cannot
confer entitlement to continuation or renewal of a contractual engagement.
37. It is contended that fixed-term contractual appointments
automatically expire and no enforceable right is possessed by the appellant
against the respondents.
38. It is denied that renewals of service of the appellant from time to
time were automatic or based solely on satisfactory performance.
39. According to the respondents, the memorandum dt.04.12.2024
issued by SoFED pertains solely to the internal extension of outsourced
contractual manpower by the outsourcing agency, and not by respondent No.5,
and that the appellant‟s name though appeared at serial No.29 indicating
extension from 07.10.2024 to 06.09.2025, reflects only SoFED‟s
administrative decision for continuation of deployment, and does not create
any employer-employee relationship or service rights against the respondent
No.5 or the State of Tripura.
40. Even with regard to the office order dt.14.05.2025, it is
contended that the assignment of duties to the appellant as PIO was purely in
her capacity as an outsourced personnel deployed through SoFED and placed
at the Project Management Agency, and though the said order was issued by
the respondent No.5, it does not confer any service rights, permanency or
entitlement to continuation.
41. According to the respondents such assignment orders are
functional in nature and are issued to all PMA personnel for operational
TRHC010012242026
Page 11 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
convenience, without creating any employer-employee relationship with the
project.
42. It is alleged that even after issuance of the office order
dt.14.05.2025, the appellant did not undertake adequate or satisfactory
monitoring of project implementation in the sub-divisions other than Ambassa
sub-division, though she was supposed to monitor five sub-divisions.
43. It was denied that the appellant submitted any field monitoring
reports, progress updates, activity status reports, or documented observations
for the other sub-divisions assigned to her except few, and that it reflects her
negligence and non-compliance with assigned duties.
44. It is admitted that in the office order dt.28.08.2025, duties of the
appellant as PIO were reassigned to the respondent No.8 who was STO-MIS
with immediate effect.
45. According to the respondents, the appellant‟s persistent non-
performance posed a serious risk to the progress of the project, and that re-
assigning the duties to the respondent No.8 was in the larger interest of the
project to prevent further delay or stagnation.
46. While admitting that the Memorandum dt.25.09.2025 was issued
by the Member Secretary of SoFED extending her contractual service from
08.09.2025 to 25.09.2025, it was stated that it was only a short, stop-gap
extension granted by SoFED in its capacity as the outsourcing agency for
continued deployment of contractual manpower, and it does not create any
employer-employee relationship, service right or legitimate expectation of
further continuation against the respondent No.5 or the State.
TRHC010012242026
Page 12 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
47. According to respondents No.1 to 4 after 25.09.2025, the
appellant‟s contractual engagement was not extended by SoFED which alone
takes the final decision on continuation or discontinuation of outsourced
personnel.
48. Reliance is placed on the same Clause 2.7.2 of the POM of the
IGDC (CREFLAT) project, and it is stated that long unauthorised absence
during the contract period or indulgence in serious misconduct, would render a
contractual employee liable for disengagement by the CREFLAT project
authority following principles of natural justice, and that the expression
„serious misconduct‟ would mean improper or unprofessional act considered
detrimental for the functioning, and whether an act is misconduct or not would
be decided by the Appointing Authority whose decision will be final and
binding.
49. Allegations of humiliation, abuse, gender discrimination,
personal dislike or biased comments attributed to the respondent No.5 are
denied as being false and baseless.
50. It was denied that the reassignment of duties to her junior officer
was with done any mala fide intention.
51. The respondents deny the stand of the appellant that a contractual
staff cannot be replaced by another contractual staff, and it is contended that in
outsourced manpower arrangements, service provider is free to deploy another
contractual person where performance concerns or administrative need so
required and the appellant, being an outsourced functionary, cannot claim any
right to continue in the post of PIO or to restrain deployment of any other
personnel.
TRHC010012242026
Page 13 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
52. It is contended that non-continuation of the appellant‟s contract
after 25.09.2025 was based on established procedure and objective evaluation,
and not on any personal or discriminatory grounds.
53. According to the respondents, the continuation of the project has
no bearing on the appellant‟s individual contractual status, and discontinuation
of her services was a performance based administrative decision taken strictly
as per the contractual framework governing outsourced staff deployed under
the CREFLAT project management agency, and is not arbitrary, unfair or
unlawful.
The stand of respondents No.5, 7 and 8:
54. Respondents No.5, 7 & 8 also reiterate the said stand and the
counter affidavit filed by them, is almost identical to that filed by respondents
No.1 to 4.
55. None of the respondents make a mention of taking further action after
issuing the advertisement for filling up the post of Project Implementing
Authority along with other posts.
Rejoinder by appellant:
56. Rejoinder affidavits had also been filed by the appellant refuting
the contentions raised by the respondents, and she reiterated her stand that
only on being satisfied with her performance, her tenure was extended from
time to time.
57. She also alleged that she was not furnished any complaint made
against her, and no show cause notice had been issued to her in respect of any
complaint made against her with regard to her performance. If she had ever
failed in performing any of her assigned duties, appellant contends, the
TRHC010012242026
Page 14 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
respondent No.5 or the APO would have called for her explanation, issued
show cause notices, warnings etc., but no such documents exist and have been
placed before the Court. She therefore alleges that this is a false plea taken by
the respondents to somehow or other justify non-extension of her services.
58. She contended that the letter filed by the respondents containing
certain allegations against her, is a manufactured one as it bears no receipt
number, no seal and no docket number, and it is not even marked to the fifth
respondent and only to malign her, this plea was raised.
The decision of the learned Single Judge:
59. The learned Single Judge noted the contentions of both parties.
The leaned Single Judge framed the following questions:
“whether the appellant, being a contractual employee, can
claim for regularization?”
And
“whether the Court can direct the respondents to absorb her
services?”
60. Relying on certain judgments of the Supreme Court in The
Municipal Council, represented by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality,
1
Kurnool District, A.P. v. K. Jayaram and Others which declined plea of
regularization made by persons engaged through a contractor, and another
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of
2
Jharkhand and Others which declined plea of regularization of services in
State Government made by para teachers in the State of Jharkhand under the
Sarva Sisksha Abhiyan , a scheme jointly funded by the Union of India and
1
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019 dt.16.12.2025
2
(2026) SCC OnLine SC 818
TRHC010012242026
Page 15 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
the State Government, the learned Single Judge held that contract based
employees have no automatic right for regularisation/absorption/permanency
or pay parity, and they only have a right to participate and be considered under
the applicable statutory recruitment rules and participate in the process.
61. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was initially
engaged on contractual basis for 11(eleven) months by SoFED, an outsourcing
agency with effect from 10.02.2021, and thereafter her service was extended
from time to time, and lastly up to 25.09.2025 and thereafter the agency had
given an advertisement for appointment of persons against the post of PIO
also along with other posts.
62. He also took into account the stand of the respondents that her
performance was not satisfactory.
63. He therefore held that there was no irregularity or illegality in the
action of the respondents.
64. He held that the appellant had failed to satisfy the Court by
showing any rule so as to give a direction to the respondents to absorb her in
the post which she was possessing prior to her discontinuance, and so she was
not entitled to any relief.
65. Assailing the same, the instant Writ Appeal has been filed.
Consideration by the Court:
66. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kohinoor
Narayan Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
67. A perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge indicates
that he had considered the pleadings of appellant primarily from the point of
TRHC010012242026
Page 16 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
view of regularization of appellant‟s services ignoring her primary plea of
wrongful discontinuance of services w.e.f. 26.9.2025.
68. He has committed a grave error in not focusing properly on the
issue as to “ whether non-engagement of the appellant by the respondents after
26.09.2025, was legal or not ?”
69. The learned single Judge also in our opinion blindly accepted the
plea of the respondents that the appellant was an „out sourced employee‟
without examining its correctness.
70. We shall presently show that this stand of the respondents cannot
be accepted.
71. The appellant has filed the Project Operation Manual of the Indo-
German Development Cooperation project. Para 1.9 thereof shows that the
said Project will be delivered over seven years (2020-2027). Para 1.10 states
that a Project Management Authority will be set up to implement the project
along with two District Project Management Authorities.
72. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is admitted
that the Society for Entrepreneurship Development (SoFED) is the Project
Implementing Agency.
73. Clause 2.7 of the Manual deals with aspects of
recruitment/Engagement/ Deployment of Personnel. Para A thereof speaks of
taking people on deputation from Forest Department of Govt. of Tripura. Para
B thereof deals with “ Contractual /Outsourced Employees ”. It states:
“Personnel engaged by the Society at PMA and DPMAs on
contract basis, either directly or through outsourcing, will be paid
consolidated emoluments, as per prescribed rate….. In case of
TRHC010012242026
Page 17 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
outsourced staff, the Outsourcing Agency shall submit the bills
towards remuneration of staff along with taxes, service charge,
etc. as admissible. PMA will place the requisite funds with the
outsourcing Agency for making payments to the outsourced
project staff.”
74. Thus the Project Management Agency can itself appoint persons
on contract basis. It can also do so through Outsourcing agencies. The SoFED,
which is the Project Management Agency, therefore cannot also be the
Outsourcing Agency. The Outsourcing agency has to be some other
contractor.
75. A reading of the appointment letter dt.10.02.2021 issued by the
SoFED to appellant indicates that the appellant was appointed as Project
Implementing Officer for the IGDC (CREFLAT) project on contract basis
initially for 11(eleven) months on a contract gross pay of Rs.80,000/-. So her
appointment is not through an Out Sourcing Agency and was directly made by
SoFED.
76. Thus she is a contractual employee of SoFED which is
implementing the IGDC (CREFLAT) project whose CEO is respondent No.5.
Respondent No.5 and SoFED are projecting themselves as separate entities,
but they are both working in tandem, and are part of the same system existing
for implementing the IGDC (CREFLAT) project.
77. The following circumstances also establish this conclusively:
(i) The respondents themselves have filed a letter
dt.10.3.2022 of the then CEO &PD, IGDC Project addressed to SoFED stating
that the appellant‟s performance has been outstanding all along and no lapse
TRHC010012242026
Page 18 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
or shortcoming has ever been noticed in her attitude or performance or
integrity and that her services needed to be extended.
(ii) On 16.08.2022, the then CEO & PD of the IGDC
CREFLAT Project (respondent No.5) also issued a certificate to appellant
stating that the appellant was working in the externally aided IGDC project
(CREFLAT) with effect from 15.02.2021 in the capacity of Project
Implementing Officer and she was performing a variety of duties assigned to
her from time to time. After setting out the duties performed by her till that
date, it was stated that she prepared several project reports of which two had
been considered by the North Easter Council (NEC) for approval/funding
during her tenure in the CREFLAT project, and that in view of her
extraordinary performance, she was recommended for the Chief Minister‟s
Excellence Award for the year 2021-2 It is further stated that the appellant
was sincere, hardworking and bears a trustworthy moral character, and the
certificate was being issued to her as a testimony in support of her working
experience in the IGDC (CREFLAT) project.
(iii) Notably the office order dt.14.05.2025 was issued by the
respondent No.5 entrusting several duties to the appellant. Another office
order dt.14.5.2025 was also issued by him asking her to take overall
responsibility of 5 sub-Divisions.
(iv) The subsequent order dt.28.8.2025 taking away her duties
and entrusting them to STO-MIS was also issued by respondent No.5.
(v) He also issued the Office Order dt.4.9.2025 asking her to
assist the Assistant Project Officer of the IGDC CREFLAT project for routine
duties.
TRHC010012242026
Page 19 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
(vi) He even prepared her Performance Appraisal Report.
78. If the respondent no.5 had no employer-employee relationship
with the appellant, these things would not have been done by him. The stand
taken by the respondents is thus not supported by record and appears to have
been taken to mislead this Court.
79. This entire material had inexplicably not been taken note of by
the learned single Judge, and he erroneously came to the conclusion that
appellant was an outsourced employee, and that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the respondent No.5 and the appellant. Thus
the judgments relied on by the learned single Judge have no relevance.
80. So the plea of the respondents that appellant is an Outsourcing
employee engaged through SoFED, an Outsourcing Agency, is rejected. We
hold that she is a contractual employee engaged by SoFED/respondent No.5
for implementing the IGDC CREFLAT Project.
81. SoFED is admittedly a Society floated by the State Government
of Tripura with the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura as its ex-officio
Chairman, and is undoubtedly an instrumentality of State under Art.12 of the
Constitution of India. The IGDC CREFLAT project is also partly funded by
the State of Tripura. Thus the Writ Petition is certainly maintainable against it.
82. The next questions are “ whether the disengagement of the
appellant with effect from 25.09.2025 by the respondents, is valid or not? ”,
and “whether the process leading to such disengagement was proper, legal or
not? ”
83. Now we shall point out how the respondents themselves
considered the quality of the appellant‟s work between 2021 and 2025.
TRHC010012242026
Page 20 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
84. The „Foreword‟ of the Project Operation Manual itself
acknowledges the contribution of the appellant in preparation of the original
draft of the manual which was subsequently approved by the competent
authority. It indicates that she had a primary role in its preparation.
85. The letter dt.16.3.2022 recommending extension of her services
speaks of her „ outstandin g‟ performance, and the certificate dt.16.08.2022
issued by the then respondent No.5 praises her performance as „ extraordinary ‟
and even recommended her for the Chief Minister‟s Excellence Award for
2021-22 in addition to certifying her as a sincere, hardworking person bearing
trustworthy moral character. The latter certificate was issued to her as a
testimony in support of her working experience in the IGDC (CREFLAT)
project.
86. The fact that her services were extended from 10.2.2021 till
25.9.2025 also reinforces the fact that nothing wrong was found with her
services by the respondents at any point of time prior to the issuance of the
said extension up to 06.09.2025.
87. No doubt some material relating to the year 2012 and 2013 has also
been filed by the respondents indicating some conduct on part of appellant
which was alleged to be inappropriate, but such 13 year old material cannot be
revived now by respondents to justify non-extension of her services in 2025,
having engaged her services in various capacities since then. It indicates
malice on part of respondents against her and shows that they are bent upon
discrediting her caliber and competence somehow or the other.
88. When the appellant was working as a Research Associate, Forest
Reserve Division she had made a complaint on 25.2.2014 to the Director,
TRHC010012242026
Page 21 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
NCE, Gandhigram alleging her wrongful transfer to the Forest Research
Division and also making allegations of financial irregularities committed by
the ACA working under the said official. It is not disclosed by respondents
what transpired thereafter. Such an event more than 10 years old also cannot
be dug up by the respondents to tarnish her work and reputation.
89. Certain employees had also made a complaint against her on
7.2.2022, 16.6.2022, 19.7.2022 but these appear to have been not taken
seriously because it was felt by the respondents that there was no substance in
those complaints. No action appears to have been taken against her as no show
cause notice was issued to her.
90. The appellant had made another complaint on 17.10.2023 to the
Tripura Women‟s‟ Commission alleging gender discrimination and
harassment against Sri C.L. Das who had earlier worked as CEO & PD of
IGDC CREFLAT project. She had also given a complaint against Sri C.L. Das
on 22.2.2024 to the CEO & PD CREFLAT project reiterating the same. This
complaint was referred by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for
inquiry by the Chief Conservator of Forests (P&D) by treating it as one under
the POSH Act, 2013. An internal inquiry was conducted into the said
allegations by the Chief Conservator of Forests (P&D). As per inquiry report
dt.12.4.2024, her allegations were not found not proved by the said Inquiry
officer.
91. Notwithstanding the above, the fact remains that from 2021 to
2025, no instance of inefficiency in performance of her work as Project
Implementation Officer was ever brought to her notice by respondents till
TRHC010012242026
Page 22 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
non-extension of her services after 25.9.2025 by issuing a show cause notice
to her while working as Project Implementing Officer.
92. The fact that the respondent No.5 even entrusted certain duties on
14.05.2025 to the appellant as a PIO, reinforces her plea that her performance
in work was blemish less though for undisclosed reasons he asked her on
4.9.2025 to assist the Additional Project Officer who was junior to her. This
indicates that he intended to humiliate her by making her assist her
subordinate and this conduct is also mala fide.
93. We shall now refer to Performance Appraisal Report dt.16.9.2025
of the appellant prepared by the appellant‟s junior Atanu Saha as Additional
Project Officer and approved by respondent No.5 which is now strongly relied
by respondents to justify the non-engagement of services of appellant.
94. We find it shocking that the same could have been got prepared
by Atanu Saha her junior. He had initially signed it on page 2 on 22.9.2025,
but he changed the date later by striking off „22‟ and corrected it as „16‟ and
so backdated it as 16.9.2025. This is apparent to the naked eye.
95. By order dt.4.9.2025 of the respondent No.5, Atanu Saha had
benefitted from getting appellant, his superior, to assist him. He cannot
therefore be expected realistically to jeopardize his own power and position by
giving the appellant a good performance review. So there existed no
possibility of any fair appraisal of appellant‟s performance by him. Such a
prejudiced person whose self interest was in giving the appellant a bad
performance review and who did give such review cannot be said to have
acted bona fide and no weight can be attached to it.
TRHC010012242026
Page 23 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
96. The respondent No.5 also the put his signature approving the
performance appraisal made by Atanu Saha. This mala fide action of
respondent No.5 vitiates his actions as the latter would anyhow try to retain
the benefit given to him by respondent No.5 in the latter‟s order dt.4.9.2025.
97. We have already noted that between 7.10.2024 and 6.9.2025, the
dates for which this performance appraisal was made, not a single show cause
notice/warning had been given to appellant regarding her alleged „below
standard‟ performance. The comments recorded in the Performance Appraisal
Report, in the light of the above circumstances, have to be treated as a
deliberate attempt to create a ground for disengagement of her services and
cannot be relied upon as a true indicia of the appellant‟s performance as
Project Implementation Officer.
3
98. In Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others ,
the Supreme Court considered a situation where the appellant had been
appointed by respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator
under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan on contract basis initially for one academic
session, renewable in subsequent years for two years each subject to
evaluation of work in the first year.
The appellant was later made in-charge of “Children with Special
Needs” Girls‟ Hostel, but the same was withdrawn after 5 or 6 days after
assigning of the charge and a show cause notice was issued to her stating that
she was absent, and was also negligent in performance of her duties.
This was followed up by another show cause notice making
certain other allegations, to which she replied.
3
(2024) 19 SCC 128
TRHC010012242026
Page 24 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
On 30.03.2013, respondent No.4 passed an order deciding not to
extend her contract as Assistant Project Coordinator from 31.03.2013 on the
ground of dereliction of duty as her work/performance was found to be
unsatisfactory.
She then filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High
Court challenging the order refusing to renew/extend her services.
Though the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by
holding the termination order to be stigmatic in nature relating to alleged
misconduct involving moral turpitude, and holding the same as illegal, as it
could not have been passed without holding a regular inquiry, the Division
Bench set aside the said order forcing the appellant to come to the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court held that the order dt.30.03.2013 has to be
treated as „stigmatic‟ since it mentioned the words “ indulged in undesirable
activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission ”.
The Supreme Court held that the order dt.30.03.2013 was the
culmination of the process set into motion by the two show cause notices
which had been overruled by the Division Bench, and mere non-mention of
the background situation or the show cause notices in the order dt.30.03.2013
cannot, be itself, be determinative of the nature of the order.
It relied on a Constitution Bench judgment in Samsher Singh v.
4
State of Punjab & Another and in Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India &
5
Another to hold that the form of an order is not its final determinant and the
4
(1974) 2 SCC 831
5
(1984) 2 SCC 369
TRHC010012242026
Page 25 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
Court can find out the real reason and true character behind
terminating/removing an employee.
The Supreme Court set aside the order dt.30.03.2013 on the
ground that it visits the appellant with evil consequences and would create
hurdles for her further employment, and restored the order of the Single Judge
by directing the appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits
including notional continuation in service on par with other similarly situated
employees and the back wages restricted to 50 %.
It also denied the respondents the liberty to proceed afresh
against the appellant, though the same was granted by the learned Single
Judge.
It however stated that it would not preclude the respondents from
taking action against the appellant in accordance with law in futuro as regards
her official duties on the post in question, if the situation so arises.
99. In the instant case, Clause 2.7.2 itself mentions that long
unauthorised absence during the contract period or indulgence in serious
misconduct would render a contractual employee liable for disengagement by
the CREFLAT project authority following principles of natural justice , and
that the expression „serious misconduct‟ would mean improper or
unprofessional act considered detrimental for the functioning.
100. When the appellant‟s appointment itself is subject to such a
condition, and if the respondents allege that her performance was for some
reason not good (allegedly she had not submitted monthly work reports, had
not regularly visited the field despite being assigned monitoring duties across
multiple sub-divisions, etc), such an opinion being „stigmatic‟, they are bound
TRHC010012242026
Page 26 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
to follow the principles of natural justice. Admittedly they have not done so in
the instant case. Thus the discontinuance of services of the appellant by
respondents is also in violation of principles of natural justice.
101. Also the Supreme Court has held in Uttar Pradesh Junior High
School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
6
Others that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc
employee, a temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary
employee, and a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another
contractual employee . This legal position cannot be disputed by the
respondents.
102. In the instant case after discontinuing the services of the appellant
on 25.09.2025, admittedly the respondents have issued an advertisement
calling applications for filling up the post of Project Implementing Officer
(PIO) on contract basis contrary to the above decision of the Supreme Court
that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual
employee. Since all respondents are silent on what happened thereafter, we
assume that no recruitment has been done thereafter to the post of Project
Implementation Officer.
103. We deprecate the conduct of the respondents in taking false and
misleading pleas contrary to record and contrary to law and hold that, in not
extending the appellant‟s services as Project Implementing Officer for the
Indo-German Development Cooperation Project (CREFLAT) beyond
25.9.2025, they have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, without any bona fides,
6
(2026) 5 SCC 321
TRHC010012242026
Page 27 of 27
2026:THC:1473-DB
in violation of principles of natural justice and Art.14 of the Constitution of
India.
104. We thus hold that the disengagement of the appellant with effect
from 25.09.2025 by the respondents is not legal or valid, and the process
leading to such disengagement was also not proper or legal.
105. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the
recruitment notification No.05/2025-26 dt.05.11.2025 issued by the sixth
respondent to the extent of filling up of post of Project Implementing Officer
on contract basis is quashed; the judgment dt.18.05.2026 of the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.660/2025 is set aside; and the respondents are directed to
forthwith reinstate the appellant as Project Implementing Officer for the Indo-
German Development Cooperation Project (CREFLAT) with full back wages
for the aforesaid reasons. The respondent No.5 shall also pay costs of
Rs.15,000/- to the appellant within 4(four) weeks.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.11.11 14:11:32 +05'30'