A contractual employee has no vested right to renewal after expiry of the contract.

The petitioner had worked as an Additional Programme Officer (APO), MGNREGA, at Janpad Panchayat Ater, District Bhind, since 13 December 2006.

His contractual engagement had been extended periodically, and he relied on appreciation letters, satisfactory performance, ACRs, and the continued vacancy of the post.

For the contractual year 2025–26, however, the competent authority declined to extend his engagement by order dated 28 January 2026, referring to the Collector’s recommendation against renewal.

The State contended that the petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual and that irregularities had been noticed during his tenure, including pending material payments of approximately ₹1.83 crore and allegedly impermissible payments of ₹37.85 lakh.

The petitioner challenged the non-renewal order under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought quashing of the order and permission to continue as APO.

Whether a contractual employee whose contractual term has expired can claim reinstatement, re-appointment, or compulsory continuation in service merely because the contract had previously been extended or the post remained vacant?

Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to renewal of his MGNREGA contract under the 2025 service-condition instructions on the basis of his past service and alleged satisfactory performance?

Whether the order declining renewal was liable to be quashed for being arbitrary, non-speaking, stigmatic, or contrary to principles of natural justice?

The Court applied the principle that expiry of a contractual term does not create a right to continuation, and that repeated extensions do not confer a vested right to further renewal.

Relying on Brijendra Gupta v. State of M.P., Writ Appeal No. 617 of 2015, and Prem Chand Yadav v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., W.P. No. 5590 of 2017, the Court held that an employer cannot be compelled to extend or renew a contract after its expiry, since renewal remains within the employer’s discretion.

The Court also relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, for the rule that long contractual service does not create a right to regularisation or permanent continuation in the absence of a legally enforceable statutory scheme, policy, or regulation.

Clause 1.3 of the MGNREGA Contract Employees’ New Service Conditions Instructions, 2025, provides for renewal where annual evaluation is satisfactory and no disciplinary or prosecution proceeding is pending, but does not create an automatic or indefeasible right to renewal.

A non-renewal order which merely brings a contractual engagement to an end, without recording misconduct or casting stigma, is simpliciter in nature.

The Court held that the petitioner’s contractual term had ended and that no rule, regulation, scheme, or policy established an enforceable right to renewal or regularisation after several years of service.

Although Clause 1.3 permits renewal upon satisfaction of specified conditions, the provision does not entitle an employee to automatic continuation; renewal remains subject to assessment by the competent authority.

The petitioner’s prior extensions, length of service, appreciation letters, and the continued vacancy of the post could not override the contractual nature of his engagement or compel the State to renew it.

The Court further found that the impugned order did not itself record misconduct or make any adverse finding against the petitioner; it simply declined to extend the contract.

Consequently, it was not stigmatic and did not warrant interference under Article 226.

It held that a contractual employee has no vested or automatic right to renewal, reinstatement, re-appointment, or continuation after expiry of the contractual period merely because of long service, previous extensions, satisfactory work, or the existence of a vacant post.

The order dated 28 January 2026 refusing extension of the petitioner’s contract was not shown to violate any enforceable legal right and was not stigmatic.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, and no direction was issued permitting the petitioner to resume or continue as Additional Programme Officer.