Contractual employees shall not be replaced by another set of contractual or outsourced employees.

The ten applicants were working on contractual terms in various posts, including Driver, Ground Man, Physiotherapist, Watchman and Clerk/LDC, at the Sports Authority of India’s Northern Regional Centre, Sonepat.

They challenged the Sports Authority’s order dated 8 August 2018 and the Regional Director’s order dated 27/29 March 2019, seeking renewal/continuation of their contracts until regularly selected candidates joined, and protection against replacement through outsourcing.

The Tribunal had granted an interim order on 14 May 2019 restraining disengagement of the applicants, which continued during the proceedings.

The respondents subsequently stated that Applicants 1 and 4 had been terminated for misconduct and had filed separate proceedings; Applicant 4, Neeraj Vats, had reportedly died.

The remaining applicants continued in service under the interim arrangement, and the respondents stated that they were not being replaced by another set of contractual or outsourced employees.

1. Whether the respondents could replace the applicants, who were contractual employees, with another set of contractual or outsourced employees

2. Whether the applicants, other than Applicants 1 and 4, were entitled to continuation in service subject to the condition that they would not be replaced by another set of contractual employees

3. Whether the claims concerning Applicants 1 and 4 could be adjudicated in the present application despite their alleged termination for misconduct and the availability of separate proceedings.

The applicants relied upon the principle stated in Hargurpartap Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (13) SCC 292, as reflected in the relief clause, namely that contractual employees should not ordinarily be replaced by another set of contractual employees merely to continue the same arrangement.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ statement that the applicants, except Applicants 1 and 4, were not being replaced by another set of contractual employees, including outsourced personnel, and directed that such replacement should not take place.

The Tribunal did not finally determine the legality of the impugned orders or grant regularisation or an absolute right of renewal.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents’ supplementary affidavit recorded the continued engagement of the applicants pursuant to the interim order, while separately stating that Applicants 1 and 4 had been terminated for misconduct and had initiated separate proceedings.

Since the respondents’ counsel expressly assured the Tribunal that the other applicants were not being replaced by another set of contractual or outsourced employees, the Tribunal treated that assurance as sufficient to resolve the surviving controversy regarding contractual replacement.

Applying the principle against replacing one group of contractual workers with another, it limited the protection to Applicants 2, 3 and 5 to 10 and excluded Applicants 1 and 4 from the operative direction.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The Tribunal did not grant regularisation, direct unconditional renewal of contracts, or finally adjudicate the separate termination claims of Applicants 1 and 4.