PREM SAGAR GUPTA vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

1

(Reserved on 31.07.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
st
ALLAHABAD, this the 01 day of September, 2026
Present:
HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.

Recall Application No. 3071 of 2026
IN
Original Application No. 665 of 2026

Prem Sagar Gupta S/o Ram Milan Gupta, House No.17, Gate No. 3,
Vaishali Puram, Infront of Kajaria Showroom, Swam Jayanti Nagar
VTC, Aligarh PO Aligarh District Aligarh State Uttar Pradesh PIN
Code 202001.
…………Applicant.
V E R S U S

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New
Delhi-110011.
2. HLL Lifecare Limited, through its Director
Registered office :
Tambaram Main Road,
Pallikarnai Chennai-600100

HeadOffice:
HLL Bhavan, Mahilamandiram
Road, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala-695012
3. Manager (HR) of HLL Aligarh.
. . . . . . Respondents.
Advocate for the applicant: Mr. S.K. Ojha.
Advocate for the respondents: Mr.Nikhilesh Krishnan/Mr. K.D.
Tiwari/Mr. P.K. Dubey.

ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking
quashing of the impugned Termination Letter dated
Shakuntala Singh

2

28.04.2026 issued by respondent No.2 and a direction to the
respondents to regularize his services on the post held by
him with all consequential benefits. The reliefs prayed for by
the applicant are as under:-

“i To set aside the impugned Termination Letters
dated 28.04.2026 (A-1) issued by the Respondent
No.2; And

ii. To Direct Respondents to regularize the service of
applicant to their respective posts in the
respondent no.2 with all consequential benefits;
And/or

iii. To pass any other order of orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the
case.

iv. To award costs.”
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 BDE-
IV 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
Shakuntala Singh

3

to the respondents to continue/regularize his services with

consequential benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
impugned termination/discontinuation of the applicant’s
engagement is arbitrary and unsustainable, having been
effected abruptly without notice or affording any opportunity
of hearing and without recording cogent reasons by way of a
speaking order. It is submitted that the applicant had
rendered continuous and unblemished service for almost 14
years, his engagement had repeatedly been renewed, and
even the last renewal dated 11.03.2026 extended his contract
up to 31.03.2027. Learned counsel further submits that the
applicant had been discharging duties of a perennial and
essential nature and that merely describing his engagement
as contractual cannot justify his abrupt disengagement after
such a long period of satisfactory service. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. , Bhola Nath v. State
of Jharkhand & Ors. and Jaggo v. Union of India , as well as the
judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pawan Sharma &
Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , to contend that
long-standing contractual engagement, repeated renewals
and continuous satisfactory service give rise to legitimate
expectations and cannot be brought to an abrupt end without
cogent and legally sustainable reasons. It is, therefore,
submitted that the impugned termination is violative of the
principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the applicant was engaged purely
Shakuntala Singh

4

on a fixed-term contractual basis and the terms of his
appointment specifically permitted termination during the
contract period without assigning any reason or giving any
notice. It is further submitted that the Women Healthcare
Division of respondent No.2 entered into a strategic business
alliance with M/s Themis Medicare Limited, pursuant to
which respondent No.2 discontinued its own marketing of the
products and, consequently, the services of the applicant
were discontinued. It is also submitted that the applicant was
subsequently offered fresh employment by M/s Themis

Medicare Limited.
5. In the Recall Application filed by the respondents, it has
been contended that the interim order dated 10.06.2026
staying the operation and effect of the impugned order dated
28.04.2026 was passed without furnishing a copy of the
Original Application to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and without
affording them an opportunity of hearing. It is, therefore,
submitted that the said interim order, having been passed
without hearing the affected respondents, is liable to be
recalled. The respondents have also referred to the
subsequent offer of employment made to the applicant by
M/s Themis Medicare Limited.
6. In reply to the Recall Application, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the applicant had been
continuously discharging his duties with respondent No.2 for
about 14 years and, notwithstanding the contractual clause,
his services could not have been discontinued without
affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further
submitted that the applicant’s engagement had already been
extended up to 31.03.2027 vide order dated 11.03.2026 and,
Shakuntala Singh

5

therefore, the subsequent discontinuation of his engagement
vide letter dated 28.04.2026 was unlawful. Learned counsel
further submits that the applicant neither accepted nor joined
the employment offered by M/s Themis Medicare Ltd. and
that the discontinuation of his services was in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits
that the interim protection granted by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained once the applicant’s termination had already
become effective from 13/14.05.2026 and the present
Original Application was instituted thereafter. It is contended
that staying the operation of an order which had already
taken effect would, in substance, result in revival of the
applicant’s discontinued engagement at the interim stage
itself. In support of the submission, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta , (2000) 10 SCC 311,
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors. ,
(2009) 17 SCC 555 and Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri & Ors. ,
2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014, as well as the other judgments
contained in the compilation filed on behalf of respondent
No.2.
8. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for
the applicant, and Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Mr. K.D. Tiwari
and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents
available on record.
9. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
Shakuntala Singh

6

pleadings and documents available on record. At the outset,
it is not in dispute that the applicant was engaged on a fixed-
term contractual basis and that his engagement was subject
to the terms and conditions contained in his appointment
letter. The respondents have specifically relied upon the
contractual stipulation permitting discontinuation of the
engagement without notice, and have also explained that the
discontinuation of the applicant’s engagement was
consequent upon discontinuance of the BDE-IV functions of
the Women Healthcare Division pursuant to the strategic
business arrangement entered into by respondent No.2 with
M/s. Themis Medicare Limited. In the circumstances, merely
because the applicant had served for a considerable period
or that his contractual engagement had earlier been
renewed, the same by itself cannot confer an indefeasible
right upon him to continue in contractual engagement
contrary to the terms governing such engagement.
10. It is also relevant to notice that, immediately prior to the
issuance of the impugned termination letter dated
28.04.2026, the applicant was intimated vide letter dated
27.04.2026 regarding the strategic business alliance entered
into by the Women Healthcare Division of HLL Lifecare
Limited with M/s. Themis Medicare Limited and the
consequential cessation of HLL’s own marketing of its Women
Healthcare Division products with effect from the end of
business hours on 13.05.2026. The said letter further
informed the applicant that a joint meeting of HLL and M/s.
Themis Medicare Limited had been scheduled during May
2026 for all field team members of the Women Healthcare
Division, with a view to introducing the new business
Shakuntala Singh

7

association and providing clarity regarding the way forward,
and his presence at the said meeting was requested. The
relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:-
“ HLL Lifecare Limited
(A Government of India Enterprise)

HALL/CHO/D(M)/WHD-FTC/2026-27 27.04.2026

Dear Mr Prem Sagar Gupta,

Subject: HLL Women Healthcare Division - M/s. Themis
Medicare Limited .

We wish to inform you that the Women Healthcare Division has
entered into a strategic business alliance with M/s. Themis
Medicare Limited for the sales, marketing, and distribution of its
product portfolio. Under this arrangement, HLL will continue to
retain ownership of the brands. This alliance will be effective from
th
14 May 2026 and HLL will be ceasing own marketing of its WHD
th
products by end of business hours on 13 May 2026.

A joint meeting of HLL and M/s. Themis Medicare Ltd has been
scheduled during May 2026 for all field team members of the
Women Healthcare Division. This session is intended to introduce
the new business association and provide clarity on the way
forward. The details regarding the date and venue will be
communicated shortly. Your presence at this meeting is requested.

We take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank you for your
services and contributions to the organization and wish you success
in your future professional endeavours.

Warm Regards
Sd/-
AJIT N
Director (Marketing)”
The contents of the letter show that the applicant had
been informed, even before the impugned termination,
about the proposed business arrangement and the
consequential cessation of HLL’s own marketing operations
in the Women Healthcare Division.
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
Shakuntala Singh

8

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 also been relied upon by the
respondents from Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri & Ors. , 2012
SCC OnLine Del 3014.
Shakuntala Singh

9

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.
15. Accordingly, Recall Application No. 3071 of 2026, filed
by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is allowed. The interim order
dated 10.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 665 of 2026 is hereby
Shakuntala Singh

10

recalled and vacated. Consequently, O.A. No. 665 of 2026 is
dismissed, being devoid of merit. The parties shall bear their
own costs.
16. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( Manju Pandey ) ( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (A) Member (J)


/Shakuntala/



Shakuntala Singh