BASANT GUPTA vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

1 OA No.547/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.547 OF 2026

th
Dated this Monday, the 19 day of October, 2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)

1. Basant Gupta S/o Omprakash Gupta,
Aged 43 years, Resident of 68, South Part,
Prajapati Vihar, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020
Presently posted as Area Sales Manager, Jaipur,
Mobile No.9799573749,
Email : [email protected]
Aadhar Card No.456179134757
Group B.

2. Nitesh Anand S/o Vijay Anand, Aged 43 years,
Resident of Raj Bhawan, Near Vishvambhar and Company,
Dausa, Rajasthan 303 303,
Presently posted as Business Development Executive,
Jaipur, Mobile No.9414276461,
Email : [email protected] ,
Aadhar Card No.234810725192,
Group B.

3. Naresh Sharma S/o Durga Prasad Sharma,
Aged 45 years, Resident of Ward No.3, Jain Gali,
Bayana, Bharatpur 321 401,
Presently posted as Business Development Executive,
Bharatpur, Mobile No.9358392871,
Email : [email protected]
Aadhar Card No.403671643914
Group – B. - Applicants

(By Advocate Ms. Shikha Parnami)

Versus

1. Union of India Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi 110 011.

2. HLL Lifecare Limited
Registered Office : Tambaram Main Road,
Pallikaranai, Chennai 600 100,
Head Office : HLL Bhavan, Mahilamandiram Road,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
Page 1 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

2 OA No.547/2026
Kerala 695 012. - Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Nikhilesh Krishnan and Shri Ashish
Dadhich)


Reserved on 13.10.2026
Pronounced on 19.10.2026


ORDER
Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The applicants were appointed by the respondent No.2 on
a fixed-term contractual basis for an initial period of two years as
Business Development Executive, and their respective contractual
engagements were renewed from time to time. The latest renewal
was made vide order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-7) for a further
period of one year, from 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2026.
2. The respondent No.2 informed the applicants vide
communication dated 27.04.2026 that the Woman’s Health Care
Division (WHD) of respondent No.2 had entered into a strategic
business alliance with M/s Themas Medicare Limited for the sale,
marketing and distribution of its product portfolio, while the
ownership of the brand would remain with the respondent No.2.
The said alliance would be effective from 14.05.2026, and HLL
Lifecare Limited, i.e. respondent No.2 will be ceasing own marketing
of its WHD products by the end of business hours on 13.05.2026.
Thereafter, termination letter dated 28.04.2026 was issued.
Aggrieved with the same, the applicant filed the present OA.
3. The OA was listed for hearing on 22.05.2026. Learned
counsel for the applicants placed before us the interim order dated
Page 2 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

3 OA No.547/2026
20.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, the
Hon’ble High Court, while issuing notice, had directed that “ till the
next date of hearing, the services of the petitioners shall not be
disengaged by the respondents ”. In view thereof, this Bench of the
Tribunal, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed that the
services of the present applicants shall also not be discontinued till
the next date of hearing.
4. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 21.08.2026, the arguing
counsel for the applicants did not appear, while on the other hand,
Shri Nikhilesh Krishnan, learned counsel for HLL Lifecare Limited,
i.e., the respondent No.2 put in an appearance and apprised the
Court that the respondent No.2 was, in fact, the main contesting
parity. We adjourned the matter to 31.08.2026 and it was made
clear that in case the applicants’ side was not represented on the
next date of hearing, IR shall stand vacated.
5 . On 31.08.2026, again the learned arguing counsel for the
applicants had not put in an appearance and, instead, proxy counsel
had appeared. Respondent No.2, the main contesting party, had
filed MA No.342/2026 for vacation of the interim relief, and Shri
Nikhilesh Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had
vehemently argued as under :
“..the applicant very well knew that respondent No.2 was
indeed the contesting party, yet had chosen not to serve the
advance copy and, at their back, had sought interim relief by
citing an interim order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Since
the respondent No.1, though present, was not aware of the
facts, as they are not the actual contesting party, they could
not apprise this Tribunal of the facts of this case as well as the
facts of CWP No.10448/2026 cited by the applicant to get the
interim relief”

Page 3 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

4 OA No.547/2026
6 . The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had
apprised us that the petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
CWP No.10448/2026, the interim order dated 20.05.2026 of which
was cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, was, in fact, in a
case where the petitioners therein were still in service and had not
been disengaged, whereas, in the present case, the applicants had
already been disengaged. The applicants, knowing very well that the
actual contesting party was HLL Lifecare Limited, did not choose to
serve an advance copy. As such, respondent No.2 could not be
represented to apprise this Court of these facts.
7. This Tribunal allowed MA No.342/2026 filed by the
respondent No.2 and vacated the interim relief granted vide order
dated 22.05.2026. Thereafter, the applicant filed MA No.389/2026 for
the recall of the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2026. For the reasons
stated therein, the MA No.342/2026 is allowed, and the order dated
31.08.2026 is hereby recalled. Thereupon, the impugned OA has
been heard on merits.
8 . Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the
controversy involved in the present OA has already been adjudicated
by the Coordinate Bench (Allahabad Bench) of this Tribunal vide
judgment dated 01.09.2026 passed in OA No.665/2026, and the
respondents have annexed the same with their reply as Annexure R-
2/18. We have gone through the same. The facts as well as the
controversy involved therein is the same as before us in the present
OA. Some relevant extract of the above-cited judgment of the
Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal are reproduced below :
Page 4 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

5 OA No.547/2026
“2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was
initially appointed by respondent No.2, HLL Lifecare Limited,
as Business Development Executive-III on fixed-term
contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 30.06.2012
and, thereafter, was appointed/promoted as Business
Development Executive-IV vide appointment letter dated
30.10.2021. The applicant continued to discharge his duties at
Aligarh and his contractual engagement was renewed from
time to time. The last renewal letter dated 11.03.2026
extended his contractual engagement from 01.01.2026 to
31.03.2027. However, vide the impugned letter dated
28.04.2026, respondent No.2 discontinued the applicant’s
engagement with effect from 14.05.2026, stating that the
BDEIV functions of the Women Healthcare Division of the
Company were being discontinued. Aggrieved by the said
discontinuation of his long-standing engagement, the applicant
has approached this Tribunal seeking, inter alia, quashing of
the impugned termination letter and a direction to the
respondents to continue/regularize his services with
consequential benefits.

…….

11. Thereafter, vide the impugned letter dated 28.04.2026,
the applicant’s contractual engagement was discontinued with
effect from 14.05.2026 on account of discontinuance of the
concerned functions of the Women Healthcare Division. It is
further borne out from the material placed on record that,
subsequent to such discontinuation, the applicant was offered
employment by M/s. Themis Medicare Limited vide offer dated
19.05.2026. Though the applicant submits that he did not
accept or join the said employment, the fact remains that such
offer was made pursuant to the aforesaid business
arrangement. These material circumstances, including the
letter dated 27.04.2026 informing the applicant about the
strategic business alliance and inviting him to the joint meeting,
as well as the subsequent offer of employment dated
19.05.2026, were not brought to the notice of this Tribunal
when the interim order dated 10.06.2026 was passed.

12. So far as the interim protection granted vide order dated
10.06.2026 is concerned, we find substance in the contention
of the respondents that such protection could not be continued
once the applicant’s contractual engagement had already
come to an end with effect from 13/14.05.2026. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000)
10 SCC 311, has held that an interim order staying termination,
thereby permitting an employee to continue in service during
the pendency of proceedings, may result in an usurpation of
public office if the proceedings are ultimately dismissed.
Likewise, in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki &
Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
deprecated an interim order which, in substance, grants the
final relief at the interlocutory stage. The same principle has
Page 5 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

6 OA No.547/2026
also been relied upon by the respondents from Air India Ltd. v.
Aditya Beri & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014.

13. In the present case, the applicant’s engagement had
already been discontinued with effect from 13/14.05.2026 and
the Original Application was instituted thereafter. The interim
order dated 10.06.2026, therefore, had the effect of restoring
the applicant to a contractual engagement which had already
come to an end, even before the legality of the impugned
termination was finally adjudicated. In view of the aforesaid
settled legal position, continuation of such interim protection
would, in substance, amount to granting at the interlocutory
stage the very relief which the applicant seeks in the Original
Application. We, therefore, find no justification for continuation
of the interim protection granted vide order dated 10.06.2026,
which is liable to be recalled and vacated.

14. As regards the challenge to the impugned termination
letter dated 28.04.2026, having regard to the nature of the
applicant’s engagement, the terms governing his contractual
appointment, and the explanation furnished by the
respondents regarding discontinuance of the concerned
functions pursuant to the strategic business arrangement, we
do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned
action in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The
applicant’s claim for continuation or regularisation cannot be
founded merely upon the length of his contractual service or
successive renewals, particularly when the engagement itself
remained contractual in nature. Consequently, we do not find
any merit in the Original Application.”


9. The applicants were engaged purely on a contractual
basis, as per the terms and conditions of their contractual
appointments by HLL Lifecare Limited, and now, with the objective of
reorganizing its business, HLL Lifecare Limited decided to close its
WHD (Women’s Health Care Division) and entered into a strategic
business alliance with M/s Themis Medicare Limited for the purpose
of sale, marketing and distribution of its product portfolio. M/s Themis
Medicare Limited issued offer of appointment letters dated
11.05.2026 to the present applicants, but they did not join and
instead, on 19.05.2026, attended the meeting scheduled by M/s
Page 6 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

7 OA No.547/2026
Themis Medicare Limited, where they were offered jobs at higher
designations vide offers of employment dated 19.05.2026.
10. In view of the above and in light of the aforesaid cited
detailed judgment passed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal,
wherein, the claim of similarly situated applicant was dismissed, we
dismiss the present OA, finding no merit in the claim for continuation
or regularization of the already discontinued contractual services of
the present applicants. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.


(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)


kmg*
Page 7 of 7

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone= c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4,
KHUSHBOO SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639,
[email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 13:20:05+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0