Satisfactory performance does not create an enforceable right to renewal of contractual scheme engagement.

The petitioner was engaged as a Block Technology Manager under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for “Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms” (CSS-ATMA) on 6 July 2013 and joined on 11 July 2013.

His contractual engagement was extended periodically, and he was subsequently transferred to Rampur Development Block, Kamrup.

His performance was consistently assessed as “Satisfactory,” including for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, for which his extension up to 31 March 2026 was recommended.

However, his name was omitted from the order dated 7 May 2025 extending the engagement of other contractual functionaries.

The petitioner alleged that, despite the absence of a formal extension order, he continued discharging duties until 6 August 2025, without receiving remuneration from April 2025 onwards.

The petitioner sought extension of his engagement, payment of outstanding remuneration, protection against the subsequent recruitment process, and consideration of his representation dated 2 September 2025.

The State contended that the engagement was purely contractual and scheme-based, that renewal was not automatic, and that the State had subsequently prescribed 60 years as the exit age for ATMA contractual employees.

Whether the petitioner, whose contractual engagement had expired on 31 March 2025 and whose performance was assessed as satisfactory, had an enforceable right to renewal or extension of engagement up to 31 March 2026?

Whether the earlier extension order referring to continuation up to the age of 65 years, and Clause 3.4.5(ii) of the ATMA Operational Guidelines, entitled the petitioner to continued engagement notwithstanding the absence of a subsequent extension order?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to remuneration for the period from 1 April 2025 to 6 August 2025, if he had in fact continued working with the knowledge and authorisation of the respondent authorities?

The Court applied the principle that a purely contractual, temporary and scheme-based engagement does not confer an indefeasible or enforceable right to renewal after expiry of the contractual term; renewal depends on the terms of engagement, continuation of the scheme, administrative requirements, performance assessment and the policy decision of the competent authority.

A satisfactory performance assessment, by itself, does not amount to an order of extension or create a vested right to continuation.

The earlier order providing for engagement up to 65 years was treated as applicable only to the particular period of extension and not as conferring a permanent right of continuation up to that age.

Clause 3.4.5(ii) of the ATMA Operational Guidelines, which contemplated preference for existing and experienced contractual manpower and stated that services should not be terminated without assigning reasons, was held not to mandate renewal in every case irrespective of applicable policy and administrative considerations.

However, where an employee is permitted, with the knowledge or authorisation of the competent authorities, to perform duties after expiry of the formal contract, remuneration is payable for the period actually worked in accordance with the applicable terms and rates.

The petitioner’s engagement was contractual and his last formal extension ended on 31 March 2025. Although his performance was satisfactory and his name appeared in the performance report recommending consideration for extension, those facts did not constitute an extension order or create an enforceable right to renewal.

The Court rejected reliance on the 65-year reference in the 2022 order because that order governed a specific period and could not be treated as a continuing guarantee of engagement.

Similarly, the preference contemplated under Clause 3.4.5(ii) of the Guidelines did not override the State’s discretion regarding renewal or compel continuation of every existing contractual employee.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide whether the subsequent 60-year exit-age policy operated retrospectively, since the petitioner independently failed to establish a legal right to renewal.

The claim for remuneration was treated separately. Since the petitioner alleged that he continued working until 6 August 2025, the Court directed the authorities to verify the official records and to pay him for the period actually worked if such work had been performed with the authorities’ knowledge and authorisation.

The prayers for extension, protection against subsequent recruitment, and continuation in service were accordingly rejected.

However, the respondent authorities were directed to verify whether the petitioner actually discharged duties from 1 April 2025 to 6 August 2025 with their knowledge and authorisation.

If so, his admissible remuneration for the period actually worked was directed to be released within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Subject to this limited direction, the writ petition was dismissed and disposed of.