Contractual employees cannot be replaced by outsourced personnel for the same work.

The applicant, Bandana Gill, was appointed as a Nursing Assistant on a contractual basis by the respondents (Sports Authority of India and Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports Patiala) via office order dated 21.05.2009, following an interview on 28.04.2009.

Her contractual engagement was repeatedly extended from time to time until 03.04.2019.

Throughout this period, her work was deemed satisfactory, as evidenced by continuous extensions.

On 27/29.03.2019, the respondents issued a communication directing the disengagement of contractual employees and the adoption of an outsourcing methodology for such services, including nursing staff.

The applicant challenged this action, arguing it constituted an arbitrary and discriminatory replacement of one contractual employee with another through outsourcing.

The Original Application (O.A.) was initially dismissed in default on 25.08.2025, leading to the termination of the applicant's services on 15.09.2025.

However, the O.A. was subsequently restored on 22.09.2025, and the interim protection granted to the applicant was revived.

The respondents filed M.A. No. 2616/2025 seeking vacation of the stay, arguing the termination was valid as it occurred when the O.A. stood dismissed.

1. Whether the respondents' action of disengaging the contractual employee (applicant) solely to replace her with other contractual arrangements through outsourcing is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Whether the termination of the applicant's services during the period when the Original Application was dismissed in default remains valid after the restoration of the O.A. and revival of interim orders.

The Tribunal applied the principle that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another similar contractual arrangement, especially when the work requirement continues.

This was supported by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in *Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another*, 2017 (1) SCT 197, which held that the rights of such employees cannot be defeated merely by an outsourcing policy when workload justifies engagement.

The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in *Hargurupratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others*, 2007 (13) SCC 292, which clarified that contractual employees can be continued until regular incumbents are appointed, even if not entitled to regularization.

Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's judgment in *Mafooza Bano vs. State of J&K and Others*, concerning the revival of interim orders upon the restoration of a case.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had served since 2009 with satisfactory performance, and the need for nursing services remained, as evidenced by the respondents' decision to meet the requirement through an outsourcing agency.

The respondents did not contend that the work had ceased or that the applicant's conduct was unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal found that the outsourcing policy could not justify displacing the applicant when the work continued, absent proof of work cessation or financial constraints.

Applying the principle from *Shiv Kumar (supra)*, the Tribunal concluded that replacing one contractual employee with another via outsourcing was impermissible.

The Tribunal also distinguished the respondents' reliance on regularization judgments from the present case, as the applicant was not seeking regular appointment but continuation until a regular incumbent joined, aligning with *Hargurupratap Singh (supra)*.

Regarding the termination during the O.A.'s dismissal in default, the Tribunal applied *Mafooza Bano (supra)*, holding that the restoration of the O.A. revived all interim orders, and actions taken contrary to such revived protection could not be permitted to defeat the judicial process.

The respondents were aware that the matter had not been decided on merits when the termination occurred.

The impugned order dated 27/29.03.2019 (Annexure A-15), which sought to disengage the applicant solely for replacement through outsourcing, is set aside.

The respondents are directed to continue the applicant in engagement on a contractual basis until regularly selected candidates are appointed.

M.A. No. 2616/2025, filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the stay, is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.