$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5826/2024, CM APPL. 24116/2024, CM APPL. 29618/2025, CM APPL. 37710/2025, CM APPL. 58734/2025 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Advocate with Petitioner in person.

versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO LG AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1 to 3.

Mr. Prashant Mehta and Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocates for R-4 to 6, 8.

Mr. Ravi S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for R-7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026

1. This petition assails Office Order dated 5^th April, 2024, by which the Petitioner was relieved from contractual engagement as “Executive Assistant” upon the stated expiry of the contract tenure on that date. The principal relief sought is quashing of the said Office Order and a direction to permit continuation up to 5^th April, 2027 on the footing that he was granted a three-year extension by an earlier office order dated 31^st July, 2023, effective from 6^th April, 2024.

Facts:

2. The Petitioner first entered the services of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission¹ on 24^th May, 2014, when he was engaged as an Executive Assistant on contractual terms. The Petitioner states that, pursuant to a contract executed on 28^th November, 2014, the engagement was for a period of three years with effect from 3^rd December, 2014 to 2^nd December, 2017, governed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Management and Development of Human Resources) Regulations, 2001.

3. The post of Executive Assistant came to be created/re-designated in the Commission’s establishment after approval of the Full Bench of DERC on 9^th July, 2013, by converting two posts of Steno-cum-Computer Operators into posts of Executive Assistant in the same pay scale. The Petitioner asserts that the post thus existed within DERC’s administrative structure and continued to be filled on contractual basis.

4. Upon completion of the first contractual tenure ending on 2^nd December, 2017, the Petitioner’s engagement was extended by an order stated to have been issued on 7^th November, 2017 for a further period of three years from 3^rd December, 2017 to 2^nd December, 2020. On completion of the said tenure, the Petitioner’s contract was again extended with effect from 3^rd December, 2020 till the joining of a new incumbent.

5. In the meantime, DERC re-advertised the post of Executive Assistant on 21^st December, 2020. The Petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement. A personal interaction was held on 26^th March, 2021. The Petitioner was selected and, an offer letter was issued on 31^st December, 2021. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner continued to serve as Executive Assistant on a fresh contractual tenure stated to be ending on 5^th April, 2024. 6. During this tenure, the Petitioner moved a request for extension of contract beyond 5^th April, 2024 by a letter dated 22^nd May, 2023. The Petitioner asserts that the request was processed through the reporting channel and received approvals at various levels. It is also his case that his work performance had been consistently graded as “Outstanding” in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports,, “APARs” and that he had remained an effective and diligent employee.

7. An office order dated 31^st July, 2023 was thereafter issued, extending the Petitioner’s contractual tenure from 6^th April, 2024 to 5^th April, 2027. The Petitioner relies on this office order as conferring a continuing tenure up to 2027.

8. However, on 5^th April, 2024, DERC issued the impugned Office Order. The order records that, in terms of the earlier office order dated 9^th April, 2021 and the last contract agreement executed with the Petitioner, his contract tenure expired on 5^th April, 2024 (afternoon). It further states that it is issued in supersession of the office order dated 31^st July, 2023, and accordingly, the Petitioner stood relieved from DERC’s contractual se