Contractual Employees Cannot Be Replaced by Another Set of Contractual or Outsourced Employees

The applicants were engaged as daily wage sweepers at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), Barnala, in 2017.

Despite continuous service, the respondents issued impugned orders dated 10.09.2020 and 22.09.2020 to outsource these services, effectively seeking to replace the existing daily wage staff with employees hired through a private agency.

The applicants challenged these orders and sought directions to continue their service until regular incumbents are joined.

The respondents contended that the outsourcing policy was a valid administrative decision approved by the Executive Committee to ensure better regulation and compliance with labour laws.

1. Whether the respondents can legally replace one set of daily wage or contractual employees with another set of similarly situated outsourced/contractual employees.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to continue in service until the appointment of regular incumbents.

The court primarily applied the principle that "one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees," as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti.

It further relied on Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, which affirm that rights from contractual engagement cannot be diluted by mere policy changes like outsourcing.

Regarding regularization, the court cited Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, holding that regularization is not a matter of right unless the initial appointment followed open selection against sanctioned posts.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had been performing essential duties continuously for a significant duration.

It reasoned that while the administration has the power to frame policies, such policies (like the outsourcing orders of 2020) cannot be used to arbitrarily displace existing workers for another set of temporary workers, as this violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The court observed that judicial consistency was required, as identical claims had been allowed by the same Tribunal in recent orders (e.g., OA No. 063/694/2020).

The Tribunal clarified that although the applicants do not have an automatic right to regularization, they possess a protected right against arbitrary replacement by any temporary arrangement other than regular recruitment.

The court held that the applicants cannot be replaced by another set of contractual or outsourced employees and directed the respondents to allow them to continue in service on existing terms until regular incumbents are appointed in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.