Pre-existing contractual engagements cannot be terminated based on subsequent directives requiring prior government sanction for future appointments.

The petitioner was engaged as a Data Entry Operator on a contractual basis by Nagar Palika Parishad, Dugadda, on March 1, 2011

She served continuously until July 20, 2025, but was terminated on July 21, 2025, by the Executive Officer

The termination was based on a 2024 directive from the Urban Development Directorate, which mandated the discontinuance of casual employees hired on sanctioned posts without prior State Government permission

This directive followed a 2015 Government Order (G.O.) that regulated contractual engagements against sanctioned posts

The petitioner challenged the termination, asserting her engagement preceded the 2015 G.O. and that there were no complaints against her performance

1. Whether the termination of a contractual employee, who was engaged prior to a restrictive Government Order, is legally sustainable based solely on the subsequent issuance of that order

2. Whether a contractual employee has a lien on the post or a right to re-engagement after termination

The Court applied the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative directives, holding that a 2015 Government Order cannot retrospectively invalidate an engagement made in 2011

It further observed the principle that contractual employees do not possess a lien on their post, meaning they do not have an inherent right to permanent status

administrative decisions regarding the termination of long-standing employees must be justified by specific contingencies such as lack of work, poor performance, or regular appointment on the post

The Court analyzed the timeline of the petitioner’s service, noting she had already completed over four years of service by the time the 2015 G.O. (requiring prior State permission) was issued

The Court reasoned that the reason assigned for termination—non-compliance with a 2015/2024 directive—was unjustified because the petitioner’s engagement predated those rules

While the respondent claimed that regular appointments were made in 2023, they failed to provide definite evidence regarding the number of vacancies

The Court balanced the petitioner’s long tenure since 2011 against her status as a contractual employee without a lien, concluding that while she could not claim a permanent right to the post, the summary termination based on an inapplicable directive warranted a sympathetic administrative review

The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction permitting the petitioners to submit a representation for re-engagement within two weeks

The competent authority is directed to decide the representation "sympathetically" and independently within eight weeks

The Court also granted the petitioners the liberty to claim continuity of service for the period they remained out of employment