ARADHANA MUDGALA vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, RAIPUR

1

CGHC010363682026 2026:CGHC:44714
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2026.10.16
10:52:39
+0530
JYOTI
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6914 of 2026
Aradhana Mudgala W/o Shri Srinivas Mudgala Aged About 40 Years
Posted As Assistant Registrar (Contractual) R/o Ward No. 07, Sanyasi
Para, Khamtarai, Near Water Tank, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. National Institute Of Technology, Raipur Through Its Director, G.E.
Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Registrar, National Institute Of Technology, Raipur, G.E. Road,
Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
3. Joint Registrar, National Institute Of Technology, Raipur, G.E. Road,
Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along
with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Order on Board
15.10.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking various reliefs;
however, at this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing only the relief
sought in Clause 10.1 of the writ petition.
2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is working
as an Assistant Registrar on a contractual basis, seeks

2
continuation of his contractual assignment for a period of 11
months, in parity with other similarly situated employees of the
respondent-Institute.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while
referring to Clause 8.27 of the writ petition, submits that the
respondent-Institute has extended the contractual tenure of
various other contractual and temporary personnel, including
personnel of the Estate Office and the Department of Applied
Geology, for a period of six months, pursuant to the offers of
appointment dated 04.06.2026. He further submits that the
trainees of the Institute have also been granted extensions
ranging from nine months to one year, vide office order dated
23.01.2026. The aforesaid documents have been placed on
record as Annexure P/13 (Colly).
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner's
contractual tenure is due to expire on 23.10.2026. Although a
proposal for extension of his contractual tenure for a period of 11
months was forwarded vide note sheet dated 22.06.2026 filed
along with the covering memo. The proposal of said extention
could not be materialized and the petitioner has been granted an
extension of only three months with effect from 24.07.2026 vide
order dated 22.07.2026. It is contended that, while the
contractual tenure of other similarly situated personnel has been
extended for longer periods, no justifiable reason has been
assigned for restricting the petitioner's extension to three months.

3
He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to permit
the petitioner to continue on his contractual assignment for a
period of 11 months, in parity with other similarly situated
employees.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to
3, referring to the reply filed on their behalf, submits that an
unblemished service record during the contractual tenure does
not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim regularization,
particularly when his initial appointment was not made against a
sanctioned post. It is further submitted that the extension of the
petitioner's contractual tenure for a period of three months was
granted only as a transitional measure and that the decision not
to grant any further extension was neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, but was based on valid legal grounds. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner's claim for parity with
other contractual employees is misconceived, as no right to
equality can be claimed on the basis of an illegality. It is also
contended that the petitioner's contractual tenure is time-bound
and that he has no enforceable right to seek its continuation. The
respondents, being bound to act in accordance with law, cannot
continue any contractual engagement contrary to the applicable
rules. He further submits that the principle that a contractual
employee cannot be replaced by another is applicable where the
employee is working against a sanctioned post and the work is of
a continuous nature. In the present case, the Petitioner was

4
never appointed against a sanctioned post, therefore, the claim of
petitioner for continuation cannot be granted.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. From a perusal of the pleadings and the documents placed on
record, it appears that the petitioner has been working on a
contractual basis since the year 2019 and that his contractual
tenure has been extended from time to time. It further appears
that, pursuant to the proposal dated 22.06.2026 recommending
extension of the petitioner's contractual tenure for a period of 11
months, the petitioner was granted an extension of only three
months with effect from 27.07.2026. The petitioner has
specifically relied upon the documents annexed as Annexure
P/13 (Colly) to demonstrate that the contractual tenure of other
personnel of the respondent-Institute has been extended for
periods ranging from six months to one year.
8. The respondents, in their reply, have primarily contended that the
petitioner has no vested right to seek continuation of his
contractual engagement. However, they have not satisfactorily
explained the basis for treating the petitioner differently from
other similarly situated contractual personnel, particularly when
the proposal dated 22.06.2026 itself contemplated an extension
of 11 months. No specific distinction has been demonstrated in
the reply to justify the grant of a shorter extension to the

5
petitioner while other contractual personnel have allegedly been
granted extensions for longer periods.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
further considering the fact that similarly situated employees have
been granted extension for a period of 9/ 11 months, the present
writ petition is allowed to the extent of the relief pressed by the
petitioner. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to
continue on his contractual assignment for a period of 11 months
with effect from 24.07.2026, subject to the applicable terms and
conditions of his contractual engagement.
10. It is made clear that the present writ petition is allowed only to
the extent indicated hereinabove. In respect of the other reliefs
sought in the writ petition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
approach the appropriate authority or avail such other remedy as
may be available to him, in accordance with law, at the
appropriate stage.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Jyoti