$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 651/2023 & CM APPLs. 2521/2023, 15294/2023 DIVAKAR NANDAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Ms.

Maanya Saxena, Mr. Siddharth Bajaj, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Batra, Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocates for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails a termination notice dated 16^th December, 2022 issued by Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Private Limited (Respondent No. 3). The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that Clause 5(b) of the appointment letter dated 1^st April, 2010, which permits termination by either side on three months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof, is unconstitutional and void.

The background

2. The Petitioner was appointed as Scientist-I in the R&D Division of Respondent No. 3 with effect from 1^st April, 2010. The appointment letter contemplated an initial probation. The appointment letter further recorded the age of superannuation as 58 years and provided, under Clause 5(b), that the employment could be terminated by either side by giving three months’

notice or salary in lieu thereof.

3. By notice dated 16^th December, 2022, Respondent No. 3 terminated the Petitioner’s employment invoking Clause 5(b). It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 3 tendered salary in lieu of notice. The challenge is to the legal permissibility of such termination. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

4. Counsel for the Petitioner urges the following grounds in support of the reliefs sought:

4.1. Petitioner’s engagement was regular in character and not a short-term contractual arrangement. The appointment letter itself contemplated an initial probation of at least one year, with confirmation upon satisfactory performance. The Petitioner’s services were, in fact, confirmed and thereafter the service incidents reflected a stable, continuing employment relationship, including grant of increments and benefits ordinarily associated with a permanent cadre.

4.2. The superannuation clause, which fixes retirement at 58 years, indicates that the engagement was intended to continue till retirement and was not purely project-based.

4.3. Clause 5(b), permitting termination on three months’ notice or salary in lieu, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Termination without reasons or prior opportunity violates fair procedure, particularly if Respondent No. 3 is subject to public law standards. The termination notice dated 16^th December, 2022 is therefore illegal and arbitrary.

4.4. The Petitioner disputes that the appointment was project-based. Reliance is placed on the minutes of the 25^th Management Committee meeting (Annexure-A) to submit that he was appointed on a regular basis for molecular plant pathology work w.e.f. 1^st April, 2010. Continued engagement even after the alleged conclusion of the project indicates that the post was not treated as time-bound.

4.5. The Petitioner served for about 12 years without adverse record. The termination followed shortly after his requests for promotion and enhancement, indicating that the action was retaliatory, particularly since the notice under Clause 5(b) discloses no performance-related or disciplinary basis.

4.6. On maintainability, the Petitioner advances twofold submissions. First, Respondent No. 3 is “State” under Article 12 since Respondent No. 2 holds about 99% shareholding and exercises effective control along with Respondent No. 1. Second, even otherwise, a writ would lie where the entity performs public functions and the impugned action is arbitrary.

4.7. Respondent No. 3 is not autonomous. Reliance is placed on the statutory character of the National Dairy Development Board¹ under the NDDB Act, 1987 and Section 42 to contend that Mother Dairy is a subsidiary undertaking of NDDB, i