Interim relief cannot revive a contractual engagement terminated before proceedings commenced.

The applicant was initially appointed by HLL Lifecare Limited as Business Development Executive-III on a fixed-term contractual basis on 30 June 2012 and was subsequently appointed/promoted as Business Development Executive-IV in 2021. His contractual engagement was renewed periodically, with the last renewal dated 11 March 2026 extending the engagement until 31 March 2027.

On 27 April 2026, HLL informed him that its Women Healthcare Division had entered into a strategic business alliance with M/s Themis Medicare Limited and would cease its own marketing operations from the end of business on 13 May 2026.

By letter dated 28 April 2026, HLL discontinued the applicant’s engagement with effect from 14 May 2026 on the ground that the relevant BDE-IV functions were being discontinued.

The applicant filed O.A. No. 665 of 2026 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the discontinuation letter, continuation/regularisation of his services, and consequential benefits.

The Tribunal granted interim protection on 10 June 2026. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 subsequently filed Recall Application No. 3071 of 2026, contending that the interim order had been passed without hearing them and that the applicant’s engagement had already ended before the order was made.

Whether the interim order dated 10 June 2026, which effectively restored the applicant to contractual engagement after his discontinuation had taken effect, was liable to be recalled and vacated?

Whether the discontinuation of the applicant’s fixed-term contractual engagement was unlawful merely because his services had been repeatedly renewed and had been extended until 31 March 2027?

Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation or regularisation of his contractual services on the basis of long-standing and satisfactory service?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that a fixed-term contractual employee has no indefeasible right to continue in service contrary to the terms of the contract, and that repeated renewals or long duration of service, by themselves, do not convert contractual employment into regular employment or create an absolute right to continuation.

In relation to interim relief, the Tribunal relied on State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, which cautions against interim orders effectively permitting continuation in office where the termination has already taken effect; State of U.P. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki, (2009) 17 SCC 555, which disapproves of granting the final relief at the interlocutory stage; and Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014.

The Tribunal further accepted that discontinuation consequent upon the abolition or cessation of the concerned contractual functions, in accordance with the governing contractual terms, could not be interfered with absent sufficient legal grounds.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s engagement was expressly contractual and governed by the terms of his appointment, including the respondents’ asserted power to discontinue the engagement without notice.

The cessation of HLL’s own marketing operations in the Women Healthcare Division was supported by the 27 April 2026 communication informing the applicant of the strategic business arrangement with Themis Medicare Limited and the resulting discontinuance of the relevant functions.

The applicant’s long service and successive renewals did not confer an indefeasible right to remain engaged or a right to regularisation.

Since the discontinuation had already become effective on 13/14 May 2026 and the interim order was passed thereafter, maintaining the interim protection would have revived an engagement that had already ended and would effectively have granted the substantive relief at the interim stage.

The Tribunal allowed Recall Application No. 3071 of 2026 and recalled and vacated the interim order dated 10 June 2026.

Consequently, O.A. No. 665 of 2026 was dismissed as devoid of merit. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.