A continuously occupied post cannot be deemed abolished to discontinue its contractual incumbent.

The applicant had earlier served as Registrar (Academics), Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, on deputation after undergoing a selection process, and continued in that post until his superannuation on 30 November 2020.

Thereafter, he was selected and appointed afresh on a purely contractual basis from 23 December 2020 under the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated 9 October 2018, initially for six months and thereafter through periodic extensions, subject to the maximum age of 65 years.

The applicant had no adverse service record and submitted a request for further extension on 18 September 2023.

When no decision was communicated, he approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking continuation until appointment of a regular incumbent or attainment of 65 years, and challenging the alleged restriction of his contractual tenure.

During the proceedings, the applicant obtained an interim status quo order regarding his posting and service conditions.

Whether the applicant, appointed on a contractual basis under the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated 9 October 2018, was entitled to consideration for further extension until a regular incumbent joined or until he attained 65 years

Whether the respondents could discontinue the applicant’s engagement on the ground that the post of Registrar (Academics) had been deemed abolished

Whether the applicant’s contractual engagement could be continued pending initiation or completion of the prescribed recruitment process for filling the post

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Chandigarh Administration policy dated 9 October 2018 governed the engagement of retired Government employees on contract: such engagement was initially for six months, extendable on a six-monthly basis, subject to the maximum age of 65 years and the applicable approval requirements; the contractual appointee had no vested right to the post and the engagement could cease upon joining of a regular incumbent.

The appointment terms in Annexure A-12 were also applicable to the applicant’s continuance.

The respondents relied on the governmental instructions dated 12 April 2017, clarifications dated 5 December 2023, and instructions dated 5 January 2024 concerning deemed abolition of posts remaining vacant for the prescribed period.

The Tribunal also considered the principles relied upon by the applicant in Dr. Reeti Mehra v. GMCH, Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, concerning continuously occupied posts, replacement of contractual employees, and the character of appointments made against sanctioned posts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been repeatedly selected and continued on contract after superannuation, that the post had remained continuously occupied by him, and that there were no adverse service remarks against him.

The respondents had not produced any formal order declaring the post to be deemed abolished and had expressly denied issuing such a communication; their pleadings were also internally inconsistent, stating at one stage that the post was deemed abolished and elsewhere that it was not covered by the deemed-abolition category under the later instructions.

Since the post had never remained vacant after the applicant’s contractual engagement and the respondents themselves intended to fill it through the prescribed recruitment mode, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s request for extension required consideration under the appointment terms and the 9 October 2018 policy.

The Tribunal did not hold that the applicant had an indefeasible right to permanent or indefinite continuation, and preserved the respondents’ authority to commence regular recruitment.

Pending such decision and until the post was filled in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the respondents were directed to allow the applicant to continue working as Registrar (Academics) on the same terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter and the policy.

The respondents were not barred from initiating or pursuing the process for filling the post through the prescribed recruitment procedure.

No order was made as to costs.