THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26941 OF 2025

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.08.2025, passed in O.A.No.1144 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Vasanthi, learned counsel representing Sri Bharatiya Sudarshan, learned Standing Counsel for National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that in pursuance of a notification, after undergoing regular selection process, the petitioners were engaged as Project Assistant, Senior Project Assistant, Training Manager and Assistant Manager during 1995 to 2002, however, on contract basis. They have rendered more than two decades of service. While so, the 2nd respondent has issued Standing Order No.816 of 2018, dated 24.01.2018, to the effect that the project staff can be engaged for the period of the sanctioned project duration only, and not exceeding for three years whichever is less. If the said Standing Order is complied with, the services of the petitioners would be disengaged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that aggrieved by the said Standing Order, dated 24.01.2018, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.1144 of 2018. Initially, the Tribunal was pleased to grant interim order. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, the 2nd respondent has filed vacate stay application and the Tribunal, vide order, dated 28.03.2025, has vacated the interim order and kept the subject O.A. pending. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.03.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10514 of 2025 and this Court vide order, dated 08.04.2025, allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 28.03.2025, passed by the Tribunal and directed the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till the disposal of the subject O.A. This Court has also directed the Tribunal to dispose of the subject O.A. on its merits as expeditiously as possible. After disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Tribunal has adjudicated the subject O.A. and dismissed the same vide impugned order, dated 14.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal has passed only a two-line order and no reasons were assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the subject O.A. The Tribunal has recorded that ‘The OA is dismissed vide order on separate sheets’. The detailed order copy was not uploaded, so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the same. Learned counsel further contended that based upon the said order, dated 14.08.2025, passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent has discontinued the services of the petitioners vide proceedings, dated 19.08.2025.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal is taking four to six months’ time to upload the order copy. If the detailed order copy is furnished to the petitioners as to why the Tribunal has dismissed the subject O.A., the petitioners will take appropriate steps to challenge the same before appropriate forum. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by directing the 2nd respondent to continue the services of the petitioners till the Tribunal uploads the detailed order copy, so as to enable them to take appropriate steps to challenge the same.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent had contended that the 2nd respondent was justified in discontinuing the services of the petitioners vide proceedings, dated 19.08.2025. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having considered the