SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12999

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R N Singh, Member (J), Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Ms. Kusumlata Swatantra – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No. 1964/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand

Contractual employees cannot be replaced without due process, particularly if complaints are involved, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Contractual employment - The Tribunal set aside the impugned order not extending the applicant’s employment and ruled against replacing contractual employees without just cause. The established need for the position must be met through proper procedure. (Paras 14, 17)

(B) Employment Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Stigmatic orders - It was held that a contractual employee cannot be ousted without due process, particularly when complaints are involved, requiring an opportunity to defend oneself.

Facts of the case:
The applicant was appointed as Central Administrator on contract, which was not extended, leading to her appeal against the impugned order and fresh recruitment for the same post.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the notice restricting engagement lacked justification and the respondents must follow due process before dismissing a contractual employee. The need for performance continuity was emphasized.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant was justified in seeking reinstatement and if the respondents could appoint new contractual employees instead of extending the existing contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that contractual employees have rights to continue unless proper procedures are followed, especially when allegations arise. The principles of natural justice apply; thus, the applicant's non-extension was unjustified given her previous performance endorsements.

Result: O.A. allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's background and contract details. (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments presented regarding the nature of employment. (Para 9 , 10)
3. observations on the law regarding employment contracts. (Para 12 , 14)
4. decision questioning the authority to deny contract renewal. (Para 17)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)

Earlier this O.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2023. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the original applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 13029/2023, wherein the Hon’ble High Court vide order / judgment dated 09.10.2023, has set aside the Tribunal’s aforesaid order and restored and revived the O.A. on the board of this Tribunal. Thus the O.A. was listed for fresh adjudication.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the pleadings available on record.

3. Undisputed facts are that in the year 2019 the respondents through the Office of the District Magistrate, North, Govt. of NCT of Delhi invited application(s) for the post of “Central Administrator” in one stop center, established in Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi. The applicant also applied in response to such advertisement. Pursuant to the selection process, the Selection Committee selected the applicant. The recommendation of the selection committee was accepted by the Competent Authority vide their order dated 09.12.2019 and thus the applicant was appointed to the said post w.e.f. 09.12.2019, on contract basis. Such contractual appointment of the applicant was extended for one year w.e.f. 10.12.2020 to 09.12.2021 and later on 11.12.2021 to 09.06.2022. The contract was lastly extended on 11.06.2022 to 16.08.2022, with the approval of the competent authority. Vide impugned notice dated 08.07.2022, the applicant was informed that the competent authority has not extended her contract beyond 16.08.2022 and thus the said notice, with direction to attend the duties upto 16.08.2022. Vide the impugned notice it was also informed that the applicant shall be at liberty to reapply and appear for the recruitment process.

4. The respondents initiated recruitment for the same post again on contract basis, through impugned notice Annexure- A/2 dated 08.07.2022. Aggrieved by non-extension of her contractual employment vide the impugned notice dated 08.07.2022 and also the action of the respondents vide their impugned notice, initiating fresh recruitment again on contract basis for the same post on which the applicant had earlier been selected and been continuously working as such, vide orders for extension of the contract from time to time, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

“8. (i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order. dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) and fresh advertisement for one post of Central Administrator (Annexure A/2) and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to allowing the applicant to work in· the department to the post of Central Administrator at one stop centre, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi till post is. filled up by regular employee and the service of the applicant cannot be replaced by another contract employee.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

5. After hearing, this Tribunal vide interim order dated 08.08.2022, directed the respondents to continue the applicant’s service on contract basis, if they are in need of service of such employee on contract basis. The respondents were further directed not to declare the final result of the post in question pursuant to the selection process initiated vide the impugned advertisement notice dated 08.07.2022.

6. Counter reply was filed by the respondents, seeking dismissal of the O.A. with cost. The applican

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top