$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6396/2021, CM APPL. 20083/2021 & CM APPL.

20084/2021 SANJAY KUMAR NIGAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Pandey, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Gunjan Sinhe Jain & Ms.

Muskaan Gopal, Advs. for R-2 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.01.2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks, in substance, a mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate the Petitioner as Consultant on contractual basis on the same terms and conditions, with arrears, with effect from 4^th February, 2021 and to extend his engagement till regular appointments are made in the concerned section. The grievance is founded on the alleged non-consideration of the Petitioner’s representation dated 30^th January, 2021 seeking extension of tenure, and on the assertion that juniors (Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed) have been retained while the Petitioner has been disengaged.

Rival Contentions

2. Respondent No. 2, in January 2017, had advertised a contractual engagement for a consultant to assist in procurement-related work, including preparation of tender documents, Terms of Reference (“TOR”), Request for Proposal (“RFP”), Request for Quotations (“RFQ”), and evaluation of bids/applications for empanelment. The Petitioner applied and was engaged by an office order dated 27^th January, 2017 for an initial short term on a consolidated monthly remuneration.

3. It is not in dispute that the engagement was contractual and for fixed periods. The Petitioner states that his tenure was extended repeatedly over about four years, with minimal breaks, on the footing that his work was found satisfactory. The last extension, as per the record placed, operated upto 4^th February, 2021. The Petitioner claims he was assigned additional responsibilities relating to Sagarmala and SAROD-Ports, which, according to him, were not ad hoc.

4. The Petition then traces events in 2020 in the context of a tender process described as the “PMC, Sagarmala” e-tender. The Petitioner alleges that he noticed discrepancies and procedural irregularities and brought the same to the attention of senior officers through emails/letters in September 2020. He attributes subsequent developments to animus arising from these communications and pleads that Respondent No. 4 developed a personal grudge and thereafter acted to edge him out.

5. On 30^th January, 2021, shortly before the contractual term was to expire, the Petitioner addressed a representation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking extension of the engagement on the same terms, broadly on the basis of past practice of extensions. On 2^nd February, 2021, a communication was issued requiring the Petitioner to hand over certain files/charge to another contractual employee, stated to be Mr. Naveen Kumar. The Petitioner contends that this was an unauthorised and punitive step, made while the representation was pending, and asserts that it effectively signalled discontinuation of his engagement. It is contended that despite his disengagement, certain persons junior to him were retained, and the impugned action is assailed as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, with reference also to the principles of “last come, first go”, equal pay, and breach of natural justice.

6. Respondent No. 2 opposes the petition, raising a preliminary objection on maintainability, including the plea that Respondent No. 2 is not “State” under Article 12, and also urges that the petition is barred by delay and laches. On merits, Respondent No. 2 submits that no writ of mandamus can issue to enforce renewal of a purely contractual tenure, particularly where the engagement was not against any regular post and was never made through the process contemplated under the IPA Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2016.

7. Respondent No. 2 does not dispute receipt of the representation but contests the prem