Union Of India & Ors. vs Dr. Arun Chauhan
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5211/2026, CM APPL. 25491/2026, CM APPL.
25492/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC,
Mr. Kunal Raj, Adv.
versus
DR. ARUN CHAUHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chauhan and Mr.
H.K. Bajpai, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 20.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 16 January 2026 passed by
1
the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2317/2025.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2019 by the National
2
Centre for Disease Control for filling up various posts in its
establishment, the respondent applied for recruitment as Assistant
Director (Entomology).
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
2
“NCDC” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 1 of 15
3. The advertisement stipulated that the post would be filled on
contractual basis. The respondent was found suitable and was
appointed on contract basis as Assistant Director (Entomology) on 1
March 2019.
4. The contract of the respondent was, thereafter, successively
renewed for the periods
(i) 15 March 2019 to 14 March 2020 vide order dated 2
April 2019,
(ii) 16 March 2020 to 15 September 2020 vide order dated 31
March 2020,
(iii) 16 September 2020 to 15 March 2021 vide order dated 14
September 2020,
(iv) 17 March 2021 to 16 March 2022 vide order dated 19
April 2021,
(v) 19 March 2022 to 17 March 2023 vide order dated 5
January 2022,
(vi) 20 March 2023 to 19 March 2024 vide order dated 6
February 2023 and
(vii) 20 March 2024 to 19 March 2025 vide order dated 22
March 2024.
5. Thus, the respondent was given as many as six extensions, each
of which was for a full period of one year, till 19 March 2025.
6. The petitioners continued to extract work from the respondent
as Assistant Director (Entomology) even after 19 March 2025 without
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 2 of 15
further communication to the respondent.
7. It was only two months thereafter, on 20 May 2025, that the
respondent was informed that he was being disengaged retrospectively
with effect from 19 March 2020 in view of the fact that his contract
had expired.
8. Thereafter, within three days of the said communication, the
petitioners issued a fresh advertisement dated 23 May 2025, again
inviting applications for the post of Assistant Director (Entomology)
to be filled on contractual basis.
9. Incensed at this, the respondent moved the Tribunal by way of
OA 2317/2025, submitting that his disengagement was a ruse to
accommodate someone else, again on contractual basis, in the very
same post which he was holding.
10. He also submitted that it was impermissible to replace one
contractual employee with another and relied, for that purpose, on
several judicial authorities.
11. The petitioners, as the respondents before the Tribunal, sought
to seek support from Office Memorandum dated 17 June 2013 issued
3
by the Department of Personnel and Training under the head,
“Concept note on guidelines for making contract appointment”.
Specific reliance was placed on Clause 3(h)(i) of the said OM which
3
“DOPT” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 3 of 15
stated that, depending upon the requirement of the job, “the duration
of the contract may be fixed but it shall not exceed five years”. The
petitioners’ contention was that, as the respondent had remained on
contract for five years, the petitioners had no option but to terminate
the contract.
12. The Tribunal did not accept the aforesaid submission of the
respondent. On the following reasoning, the Tribunal proceeded to
allow the OA:
“9. She further submits that oral complaints regarding
performance of the applicants have been received in the past and
the work performance of the applicants has remained
unsatisfactorily. However, it is not the case of the respondents that
the applicants were being disengaged or were not being continued
on the ground of their unsatisfactory performance or lack of
suitability in any manner. She further contends that the terms and
conditions as set out in the engagement order specifically provides
that the engagement was purely on temporary basis and
disengagement after 31.12.2020 is only due to the
amendment/change in General Finance Rules, 2017 and the
department is duty bound to comply with the directions set out by
the Government. It is further submitted on behalf of the
respondents that as per the amended provisions under Rule 149 of
the General Finance Rules, the procurement of goods and services
will mandatorily be done through goods and services available on
GeM (Government marketplace) platform and hiring of services of
Drivers is available on the aforesaid platform. She argues that
department concerned is required to follow the instructions of the
Government for hiring Drivers are taken from contracted vendors
available on the GeM platform. She further adds that if at all, these
Drivers wish to continue in the Department of Forests and Wildlife,
the applicants herein may approach the vendors who may be hired
from GeM portal/platform. She further argues that the judgments
referred to and relied upon on behalf of the applicants are of no
help to the applicants. In the additional affidavit, filed on behalf of
the respondents, it is asserted that amendments in the GFR Rules
were incorporated in the year 2019 vide OM dated 2.4.2019 and in
para 4 of the additional affidavit it is stated that the amended Rule
147 of General Finance Rules provides as under: -
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 4 of 15
"The ministries or departments have been delegated full
powers to make procurement of goods and services that are
not available on GeM. Common use Goods and services
available on GeM are required to be available on GeM to
be procured mandatorily through GeM as per Rule 149".
In paragraphs 5 to 13 of the said additional affidavit, the
respondents have explained as to how they have not been able to
hire the services of contractual Drivers through the aforesaid portal
earlier and have now invited the bids by the said portal on 8.1.2021
(Annexure R/6).
10. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicants has
reiterated the facts as precisely noted hereinabove and has
submitted that amendment in the GFR for procuring goods and
services of Drivers through GeM (Government e-marketing) is not
applicable in the present case. He argues that once the replacement
of existing contractual employees is not permitted under the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High
Court that itself remained prohibited offline or online. He
emphasises that the applicants are continuously working, of course,
with technical breaks on contract basis for more than six years and
they can be replaced only by regularly selected persons and not by
another set of contract employees. He further argues that oral
complaints referred to by the respondents are nothing but an
afterthought. It is an admitted case that applicants were not being
disengaged on the ground of their lacking suitability and for want
of their satisfactory performance. He argues that merely for the
reasons that the instructions have been issued by the Government
to avail goods and services through e-marketing portal of the
Government, the rights accrued to the applicants to continue on the
work/post under preference to juniors, freshers or outsiders in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble
High Court cannot be taken away. The said mode of availing the
services may be applicable in case of post or work against which
the applicants have not been engaged. Learned counsel for the
applicants further submits that department has around 21 or 22
official vehicles and only seven regular Drivers are available. A
few persons like the applicants have been working on contract
basis and probably, there is a shortfall. At the best, the respondents
can resort to GeM portal to meet such shortfall and not to replace
the applicants.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we
have also perused the pleadings available on record and have gone
through various judgments referred to and relied upon by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 5 of 15
learned counsel for the applicants. It is not in dispute that the
applicants have been engaged as contractual Drivers by the
respondents and they have been continuing as such, of course, with
certain breaks since 2014. It is also not in dispute that the
respondents are still in need of hiring the services of contractual
Drivers. It is also not the case of the respondents that the applicants
are being denied continuation of their services as contractual
Drivers w.e.f. 1.1.2021 on the ground of their proved unsuitability
for the post. It is also not the case of the respondents that any
statutory provision provides that the vacant post can be filled up on
contract basis only by outsourcing and even the persons who have
already been working against such regular post on contract basis
are required to be replaced by persons outsourced on contract basis
through aforesaid GeM portal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Piara
4
Singh's case (supra) ruled in paras 45 and 46 as under:-
45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment
through the prescribed agency but exigencies of
administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or
temporary appointment to be made. In such a
situation, effort should always be to replace such an
ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected
employee as early as possible. Such a temporary
employee may also compete along with regular
others for such selection/appointment. If he gets
selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must
give way to the regularly selected candidate. The
appointment of the regularly selected candidate
cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake
of such an ad hoc/ temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee
should not be replaced by another ad hoc or
temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a
regularly selected employee. This is necessary to
avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing
authority.
5
12. In the case of Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra) , the
petitioners were aggrieved by an Order dated 10.1.2014 passed by
this Tribunal in OA 1016/2013, wherein the petitioners had
initially approached this Tribunal vide said OA on being aggrieved
by non-extension of their contractual appointments. They had
complained about the respondents' action in discontinuing the
4
State of Haryana & ors v. Piara Singh & Ors, (1992) 4 SCC 118
5
Narinder Singh Ahuja and Others v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and
Others, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2243
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 6 of 15
petitioners' contracts. This Tribunal has dismissed the said OA vide
order/judgment dated 10.1.2014 and thus the petitioners therein in
the said OA approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Writ
Petition· (Civil) No.1741/2014 and the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi vide the very detailed discussion has ruled in paragraphs 15
to 17 as under:-
15 In the opinion of this Court, since the
respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for
the performance of the work that the petitioners
were discharging all along and there is also no
dispute that the project and funding (for the project)
would continue till 2017, the decision discontinue
the petitioners' engagement is based only on the
policy to outsource the contractual employment to a
third party. The petitioners are not insisting on
regularization, given the nature of the employment
or engagement, which is project based. However
apart from the decision to "outsource" engagement
of contract employment to a third agency, there is no
rationale to discontinue the petitioner' contracts. The
jurisdiction that the employees engaged through the
contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because
the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have
to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid,
therefore, is, in effect, because of the to charges/fees
paid the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of
this case clearly reveal that even though the work is
to be performed by contractual employees, the
reason for discontinuance of the petitioners'
employment is not their replacement with regular
appointees, but instead, with another set of
contractual employees. The state/respondents
cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that
discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone
into by the Court because the petitioners were aware
that their contracts ended.
16. For the above reasons, this court is of opinion
that the CAT erred in law, in holding that the
petitioners could not complain against
discontinuance of their contractual employment.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents
to continue the petitioners in contractual
employment on annual renewal basis, till the
currency of the RNTCP scheme/project in 2017. An
appropriate consequential order shall be issued by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 7 of 15
the respondents within eight weeks from today.
17. The impugned order of the CAT is
accordingly set aside; the writ petition is allowed in
terms of the above directions."
13. The said judgment dated 3.11.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case (supra) was challenged
by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.8706/2018 vide Order/Judgment dated
6
27.3.2015(Annexure A/7). In Shikha Jain's case (supra) , the
applicants, eight in numbers, who had been working as Programme
Assistant on contract basis in the National Aids Control
Organization of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of
India, have approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2149/2016. The
grievance of the applicants therein was that the respondents have
not been extending their respective contract beyond 30.6.2016
mainly on the ground that the respondents have decided to hire the
support staff from the domestic budgetary support through an
outsource agency. After considering various decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgement of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case (supra) , this
Tribunal held in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Order/judgment dated
12.8.2016 (Annexure A/8) as under:-
"9. Admittedly, it is not the case of the that there is no work
hire the support staff through an outsourced agency. That
means that the respondents are intending to replace the
applicants, who are working on contract basis, for the last
few years, with another set of contract employees, may be,
through outsourced agencies. The said action of replacing
one set of contract employees with another set of contract
employees is clearly against to the settled principles of law.
Even the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court is to
the same effect."
"12. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons the
OA is partly allowed and accordingly, the respondents are
directed to continue the applicants on the same terms and
conditions as long as there is work or till the vacancies are
filled up on regular basis. No order as to costs."
14. The Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in Shikha Jain's case
(supra) was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble
6
(2015) SCC OnLine Del 7948
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 8 of 15
High Court of Delhi vide writ Petition (Civil) No.5073/2017 and
the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition vide
Order/Judgment dated 27.3.2017 (Annexure A/9) and in
paragraphs 13 to 15 of the said Order/Judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court has ruled as under:
"13. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in Narinder Singh Ahuja and Others v. The
Secretary, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare &
Others , W.P. (C.) No. 1741/2014 decided on 03.11.2014. In
paragraph 15 of this decision, the Division Bench held as
follows:
"15. In the opinion of this Court, since the
respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for
the performance of the work that the petitioners
were discharging all along and there is also no
dispute that the project and funding (for the project)
would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue
the petitioners' engagement is based only on the
policy to outsource the contractual employment to a
third party. The petitioners are not insisting
regularization, given the nature of the employment
or engagement, which is project based. However
apart from the decision to "outsource" engagement
of contract employment to a third agency, there is
no rationale to discontinue the petitioners' contracts.
The justification that the employees engaged
through the contractor are paid lower wages is
arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing
agency would have to be paid its service charges.
The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect,
because of the charges/fees paid to the
contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case
clearly reveal that even though the work is to be
performed by contractual employees, the reason for
discontinuance of the petitioners' employment is
replacement with regular appointees, but instead,
with another set of contractual employees. The
state/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of
this case, say that discontinuance of such
employment cannot be gone into by the Court
because the petitioners were aware that their
contracts ended."
14. The aforesaid decision has been relied upon by the
Tribunal in the impugned order, since the endeavour of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 9 of 15
petitioners is to replace the respondents with an outsourcing
agency on contract basis. Learned counsel for the
respondents has pointed out that the said decision has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition on 27.03.2015 vide Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.8706/2015.
13. The judgment of the Tribunal concludes with the following
directions:
15. From the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Piara’s Singh’s case (supra) and that by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Narinder Singh Ahuja’s case (supra) and Shikha
Jain's case (supra) , it is evident that replacement of a contract
employee(s) by fresher(s), junior(s) or even a staff from an
outsource agency is prohibited. No statutory provision has been
brought to our notice by the respondents, which takes away the
right of preferential treatment to the daily contractual employees,
who are already engaged and are working for continuation on
contract to junior(s), fresher(s) or the person(s) to be engaged
through outsourcing agency to be taken away.
14. Agreed by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of
India and other respondents before the Tribunal have petitioned this
Court by means of the present writ petition.
15. We have heard Mr. Kunal Raj, learned Counsel for the
petitioners at some length.
16. Mr. Kunal Raj submits that the vacancies which were notified
by the advertisement dated 23 May 2025 were pre-existing vacancies,
and not the vacancies against which the respondent was appointed.
17. Thereafter, he clarifies this submission by stating that they were
pre-existing vis-à-vis the date of termination of the respondent, though
they were posts which were created while the respondent was already
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 10 of 15
holding the very same post of Assistant Director (Entomology) on
contractual basis.
18. He also seeks to place reliance on the DOPT OM dated 17 June
2023 on the “concept note on guidelines for making contract
th
appointments as per the recommendations of 6 CPC” as circulated by
the DOPT vide OM dated 17 June 2013 supra.
19. The clause on which Mr. Raj places reliance reads thus:
“Depending upon the requirement of the job, the duration of the
contract may be fixed but it shall not exceed five years. The
concerned Department should include performance linked annual
milestones in the contract. In the case of non-achievement of
milestone, the employer should have the liberty to terminate the
contract after following normal procedure in this regard”.
20. In our view, the aforesaid clause is not applicable in the present
case.
21. The clause to which Mr. Raj refers figures as the second bullet
point under serial number (iii) of the concept note titled “market-
driven compensation package”
(iii) Market-driver compensation package
• If the Ministry/Department is of the view, that the required
talent will not be available within the overall maximum pay
prescribed for the Pay Band (PB) 4, they may fix the higher
compensation package in the form of consolidated monthly pay
for the entire period. The consolidated package so fixed will
not normally exceed Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and this will be
without house and car or any other perks. In the case of
contractual market driven pay package, no other allowance
including Dearness Allowance will be admissible. The package
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 11 of 15
will have to be decided by the concerned Ministry/Department
in consultation with their FA. However, in case the
consolidated package exceeds Rs. 2.00 lakhs per month, the
matter may be referred to Department of Expenditure for
approval.
• “Depending upon the requirement of the job, the duration of the
contract may be fixed but it shall not exceed five years. The
concerned Department should include performance linked
annual milestones in the contract. In the case of non-
achievement of milestone, the employer should have the liberty
to terminate the contract after following normal procedure in
this regard”.
22. It is nobody’s case that the respondent was appointed under any
market driven compensation package and, therefore, we failed to
understand how the petitioner seeks to rely on afore-extracted clause
from the concept note.
23. That apart, even the clause, plainly read, does not state that a
contract of employment shall not exceed five years.
24. This obviously applies to the duration of a particular contract of
employment. In other words, when initially awarding a contract of
employment to an employee, that contract should not exceed five
years. It does not apply to cases of renewal of contracts each of which
is only for a period of one year or less. The afore-extracted clause
cannot, therefore, stand as an embargo on further extension of the
respondent’s contract.
25. Besides we may also note that in the offer of appointment dated
1 March 2019 issued to the respondent, there is no reference to the
DOPT concept note dated 17 June 2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 12 of 15
26. The Supreme Court has held, in a plethora of authorities,
including Piara Singh , Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari
7 8
Samiti , Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Rattan Lal v.
9
State of Haryana that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by
another ad hoc employee, and can be replaced only by someone who
is regularly selected. Piara Singh clearly holds that this has to be
ensured, to eschew arbitrariness. Mutatis mutandis , one contractual
employee can also not be replaced by another contractual employee.
Else, it would lead not only to arbitrariness but would also provide
fertile ground for corrupt practices to thrive.
27. Mr. Raj’s contention that the advertisement dated 23 May 2025
was not applicable to the vacancy held by the respondent also fails to
impress.
28. There is no dispute about the fact that the post against which the
contractual appointment was being considered was the very same post
as that which was held by the respondent, i.e., the post of Assistant
Director (Entomology).
29. To a query from the Court as to what would happen to the
vacancy which the respondent held, Mr. Raj’s submission is that it
would remain unfilled.
7
MANU/SC/0518/2022
8
(2007) 13 SCC 292
9
(1985) 4 SCC 43
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 13 of 15
30. To our mind, this may border on unfair labour practice. It is
certainly not permissible for the petitioners to keep the respondent’s
vacancy of Assistant Director (Entomology) unfilled, terminate his
contract after having extended it six times and continuing him in the
post for seven years with no blemish at any stage and, after
terminating the contract, appoint fresh persons, again on contract, as
Assistant Director (Entomology).
31. It is not as though the post of Assistant Director (Entomology)
which the respondent was holding and the vacancies which the
petitioner now seeks to fill have headlights. They are indistinguishable
from each other.
32. This, therefore, is a plain case of termination of one contract
employee in order to appoint other contract employee which is in the
teeth of settled law.
33. We, therefore, find no error in the decision of the Tribunal
which has directed the petitioners to re-engage the respondent, instead
of making fresh contractual appointments to the post of Assistant
Director (Entomology).
34. We clarify, however, that we are dealing with a case where one
contractual employee is being replaced by another contractual
employee. We are not considering a case where the petitioner is
making regular recruitments against the post which the respondent
was holding.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 14 of 15
35. That would be an entirely different matter.
36. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine
with no orders as to costs.
37. We direct compliance with the orders passed by the Tribunal, at
the latest within two weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 20, 2026/ AT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA
ARORA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
10:41:45
W.P.(C) 5211/2026 Page 15 of 15