$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 23.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 11271/2025 POORAN SINGH NAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia & Mr.

Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG and Mr. Vivek Naagar, GP with Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr, Abhigyan, Ms. Reya Paul, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Amruta Padhi, Advs. for R-1/UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Petition, preferred by the Petitioner, assails the correctness of the judgment dated 30.05.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 3397/2023 whereby the Original Application filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed, declining his prayer for continuation in service, restraint against his replacement, and regularisation on the post of Librarian with Respondent No.2 Institute.

2. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the learned Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error or perversity in declining to interfere with the discontinuance of the Petitioner’s contractual engagement upon expiry of its tenure, and in rejecting his claim for continuation and regularisation in service.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The Petitioner was engaged as a Librarian with Respondent No.2 Institute pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2010, which expressly stipulated that the appointment was on a contractual basis for a period of three years, extendable from time to time depending upon performance and administrative requirements.

4. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was issued an offer of appointment dated 16.04.2010, which was duly accepted by him. The said offer clearly indicated the contractual nature of the engagement and stipulated, inter alia, that the appointment was for a fixed tenure. Clause 5 of the terms and conditions provided that the Institute reserved the right to terminate the appointment at any time without assigning any reason, upon giving three months’ notice or payment of pay and allowances in lieu thereof. The same reads as under: “5. The Institute reserves the right to terminate the appointment at any time without giving any reasons thereof after giving three months notice or payment of pay & allowances in lieu thereof. Similarly, you may also terminate the appointment after giving three months notice or pay & allowances in lieu thereof.”

5. The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No.2 and his engagement, though initially for a period of three years, came to be extended from time to time by the competent authority. It is not in dispute that such extensions were granted periodically over the years, and the Petitioner continued to serve in the said capacity till the year

2023.

6. The last such extension was granted vide office order dated 02.05.2023, whereby the Petitioner’s contractual engagement was extended for a period of three months with effect from 03.05.2023.

The same reads as under:

“Further to Office order of even number dated 25.05.2021, the appointment of Shri. PS Nagar, as Librarian in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade Pay of Rs.4200/ - on Contract Basis is, hereby, extended by a period of 03 months w.e.f. 03.05.2023.”

Consequently, the extended tenure of the Petitioner came to an end on 02.08.2023. Upon expiry of the aforesaid period, the Respondents did not grant any further extension to the Petitioner. Resultantly, the Petitioner ceased to be in engagement with Respondent No.2 with effect from 03.08.2023.

7. Aggrieved by the non-extension of his contractual engagement, the Petitioner approa