$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1605/2026 MANISH SANKHLA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advocates.

versus INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates for R-1 with Mr. Brij Pal Singh, Asst. Consultant and Dr. V.K.S. Gautam, Asst. Proffesor.

Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026 CM APPL. 7833/2026 (seeking interim reinstatement/stay of termination order dated 31^st December, 2025)

1. The above-captioned petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the termination order dated 31^st December, 2025, by which the Petitioner’s contractual engagement as a Nursing Officer has been brought to an end. The Petitioner asserts that the impugned order is punitive in substance, founded on allegations of misconduct, and has been passed in breach of fair procedure. Consequential reliefs, including reinstatement with continuity, are sought.

Petitioner’s Contentions

2. Dr. Monika Arora, counsel for the Petitioner argues that the has been engaged as a contractual Nursing Officer with Respondent No. 1 since 2007 and has discharged duties comparable to those performed by regular nursing staff. According to the Petitioner, on 6^th November, 2025 he organised and participated in a peaceful dharna concerning grievances relating to drinking water facilities and working conditions, after due notice and intimation to the police authorities. It is his case that the protest remained peaceful. The termination order dated 31^st December, 2025 is stated to have been issued on the footing that his participation in the protest constituted misconduct, without holding any regular inquiry..

3. Dr. Arora also emphasises that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and has two minor daughters studying in Class I and Class V. It is urged that denial of interim protection would visit the Petitioner with immediate and irreversible hardship, leaving the family without a steady source of livelihood during the pendency of the proceedings. In these circumstances, she prays for interim relief by way of stay of the operation and effect of the impugned termination order, and for permission to continue in service during the pendency of the present petition.

Respondent No. 1’s contentions:

4. Mr. Tushar Sannu, counsel for Respondent No. 1, vehemently opposes interim relief. It is urged that the Petitioner’s claim of “blemish- free” service is incorrect and that there have been past instances touching upon his conduct. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 is a mental healthcare institute, where heightened discipline and sensitivity are essential, and the Petitioner’s conduct does not meet that standard

5. It is further submitted that the engagement of the Petitioner was purely contractual. Any interim order staying termination or directing continuation would, in effect, revive a concluded contract of personal service, which is impermissible.

6. Mr. Sannu further submits that the impugned decision is preceded by adherence to principles of natural justice and fair procedure. It is stated that a communication dated 1^st November, 2025 was issued to the Petitioner advising him not to hold any dharna or protest outside the office of the Director. Despite this advisory, the Petitioner allegedly participated in a protest march and attempted to forcibly enter the Director’s office.

7. It is further submitted that a show cause notice dated 19^th November, 2025 was thereafter issued in relation to the said incident. The Petitioner initially responded by email dated 26^th November, 2025 seeking additional time to submit a reply, which request was accommodated. A reply dated 19^th December, 2025 was ultimately submitted. According to Respondent No. 1,