Absence of Prior Communication Regarding Performance Deficiencies Vitiates Termination of Long-Term Contractual Employees

The applicant was appointed as a ‘Grade Based Contract Engineer’ at C-DAC Pune on 14.08.2007

Upon successful completion of probation, his contract was extended for five years

He was promoted to E-II level and subsequently joined the Noida Centre on 03.10.2011

Despite a history of "Excellent" and "Very Good" APARs, a Performance Review Committee in December 2014 judged him "Below Average" and "Unfit"

Consequently, his contractual engagement was discontinued w.e.f. 31.01.2015 via an impugned order dated 30.01.2015

The applicant challenged this termination, claiming it was arbitrary, based on uncommunicated adverse material, and sought continuity of service and migration to a regular position under C-DAC Bye-laws

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 terminating/discontinuing the contractual engagement of the applicant are sustainable in law?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim continuity of contractual service and consideration for migration from contractual position to regular position under the applicable Bye-laws/rules of the respondent-organization?

The Tribunal applied the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the precedent of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), which mandate the communication of all ACR/APAR entries that have civil consequences to an employee

applied C-DAC Bye-law 18.1.2 regarding five-year contractual terms and 18.1.5 regarding the channel for migration from contractual to regular positions

The Tribunal also followed the Delhi High Court judgment in Union of India v. Lalit Kumar (W.P.(C) No. 9857/2015), which held that C-DAC's internal review findings must be objective and consistent with an employee’s prior performance record

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s prior APARs were consistently high ("Excellent/Outstanding"), and the lower "Satisfactory" ratings were never communicated to him, violating the principles established in Dev Dutt

The sudden assessment of "Unfit" was deemed arbitrary as no warnings or counseling were ever issued prior to the review

The Tribunal noted a logical inconsistency in the respondents' stance: they claimed the contract expired by "efflux of time" while simultaneously justifying the exit based on an "Unfit" performance review

Relying on the Lalit Kumar precedent, the Tribunal held that while judicial review of expert committees is limited, it is permissible when the decision is arbitrary or ignores the employee’s track record

The Tribunal determined that although migration to a regular post is not an automatic right, the applicant was entitled to fair consideration under the existing Bye-laws

It quashed the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015. The respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s continuity of service and reconsider his case for extension and migration from contractual to regular position under Clause 18.1.2 of the Bye-laws, ignoring the previous adverse findings. The exercise must be completed within six weeks with all consequential benefits followable by law