Prem Sagar Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the impugned Termination Letter dated 28.04.2026 issued by respondent No.2 and a direction to the respondents to regularize his services on the post held by him with all consequential benefits. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed by respondent No.2, HLL Lifecare Limited, as Business Development Executive-III on fixed-term contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 30.06.2012 and, thereafter, was appointed/promoted as Business Development Executive-IV vide appointment letter dated 30.10.2021. The applicant continued to discharge his duties at Aligarh and his contractual engagement was renewed from time to time. The last renewal letter dated 11.03.2026 extended his contractual engagement from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027. However, vide the impugned letter dated 28.04.2026, respondent No.2 discontinued the applicant’s engagement with effect from 14.05.2026, stating that the BDE-IV functions of the Women Healthcare Division of the Company were being discontinued. Aggrieved by the said discontinuation of his long-standing engagement, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned termination letter and a direction to the respondents to continue/regularize his services with consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned termination/discontinuation of the applicant’s engagement is arbitrary and unsustainable, having been effected abruptly without notice or affording any opportunity of hearing and without recording cogent reasons by way of a speaking order. It is submitted that the applicant had rendered continuous and unblemished service for almost 14 years, his engagement had repeatedly been renewed, and even the last renewal dated 11.03.2026 extended his contract up to 31.03.2027. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had been discharging duties of a perennial and essential nature and that merely describing his engagement as contractual cannot justify his abrupt disengagement after such a long period of satisfactory service. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. and Jaggo v. Union of India, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., to contend that long-standing contractual engagement, repeated renewals and continuous satisfactory service give rise to legitimate expectations and cannot be brought to an abrupt end without cogent and legally sustainable reasons. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned termination is violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the applicant was engaged purely on a fixed-term contractual basis and the terms of his appointment specifically permitted termination during the contract period without assigning any reason or giving any notice. It is further submitted that the Women Healthcare Division of respondent No.2 entered into a strategic business alliance with M/s Themis Medicare Limited, pursuant to which respondent No.2 discontinued its own marketing of the products and, consequently, the services of the applicant were discontinued. It is also submitted that the applicant was subsequently offered fresh employment by M/s Themis Medicare Limited.

In the Recall Application filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the interim order dated 10.06.2026 staying the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 was passed without furnishing a copy of the Original Application to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It is, therefore, submitted that the said interim order, having been passed without hearing the affected respondents, is liable to be recalled. The respondents have also referred to the subsequent offer of employment made to the applicant by M/s Themis Medicare Limited.

In reply to the Recall Application, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had been continuously discharging his duties with respondent No.2 for about 14 years and, notwithstanding the contractual clause, his services could not have been discontinued without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the applicant’s engagement had already been extended up to 31.03.2027 vide order dated 11.03.2026 and, therefore, the subsequent discontinuation of his engagement vide letter dated 28.04.2026 was unlawful. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant neither accepted nor joined the employment offered by M/s Themis Medicare Ltd. and that the discontinuation of his services was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the interim protection granted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained once the applicant’s termination had already become effective from 13/14.05.2026 and the present Original Application was instituted thereafter. It is contended that staying the operation of an order which had already taken effect would, in substance, result in revival of the applicant’s discontinued engagement at the interim stage itself. In support of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 555 and Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014, as well as the other judgments contained in the compilation filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Mr. K.D. Tiwari and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the applicant was engaged on a fixed-term contractual basis and that his engagement was subject to the terms and conditions contained in his appointment letter. The respondents have specifically relied upon the contractual stipulation permitting discontinuation of the engagement without notice, and have also explained that the discontinuation of the applicant’s engagement was consequent upon discontinuance of the BDE-IV functions of the Women Healthcare Division pursuant to the strategic business arrangement entered into by respondent No.2 with M/s. Themis Medicare Limited. In the circumstances, merely because the applicant had served for a considerable period or that his contractual engagement had earlier been Central Administrative Tribunal^{renewed, the same by itself cannot confer an indefeasible} right upon him to continue in contractual engagement contrary to the terms governing such engagement.

It is also relevant to notice that, immediately prior to the issuance of the impugned termination letter dated 28.04.2026, the applicant was intimated vide letter dated 27.04.2026 regarding the strategic business alliance entered into by the Women Healthcare Division of HLL Lifecare Limited with M/s. Themis Medicare Limited and the consequential cessation of HLL’s own marketing of its Women Healthcare Division products with effect from the end of business hours on 13.05.2026. The said letter further informed the applicant that a joint meeting of HLL and M/s. Themis Medicare Limited had been scheduled during May 2026 for all field team members of the Women Healthcare Division, with a view to introducing the new business association and providing clarity regarding the way forward, and his presence at the said meeting was requested. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:-

The contents of the letter show that the applicant had been informed, even before the impugned termination, about the proposed business arrangement and the consequential cessation of HLL’s own marketing operations in the Women Healthcare Division.

Thereafter, vide the impugned letter dated 28.04.2026, the applicant’s contractual engagement was discontinued with effect from 14.05.2026 on account of discontinuance of the concerned functions of the Women Healthcare Division. It is further borne out from the material placed on record that, subsequent to such discontinuation, the applicant was offered employment by M/s. Themis Medicare Limited vide offer dated 19.05.2026. Though the applicant submits that he did not accept or join the said employment, the fact remains that such offer was made pursuant to the aforesaid business arrangement. These material circumstances, including the letter dated 27.04.2026 informing the applicant about the strategic business alliance and inviting him to the joint meeting, as well as the subsequent offer of employment dated 19.05.2026, were not brought to the notice of this Tribunal when the interim order dated 10.06.2026 was passed.

So far as the interim protection granted vide order dated 10.06.2026 is concerned, we find substance in the contention of the respondents that such protection could not be continued once the applicant’s contractual engagement had already come to an end with effect from 13/14.05.2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, has held that an interim order staying termination, thereby permitting an employee to continue in service during the pendency of proceedings, may result in an usurpation of public office if the proceedings are ultimately dismissed. Likewise, in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated an interim order which, in substance, grants the final relief at the interlocutory stage. The same principle has also been relied upon by the respondents from Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014.

In the present case, the applicant’s engagement had already been discontinued with effect from 13/14.05.2026 and the Original Application was instituted thereafter. The interim order dated 10.06.2026, therefore, had the effect of restoring the applicant to a contractual engagement which had already come to an end, even before the legality of the impugned termination was finally adjudicated. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, continuation of such interim protection would, in substance, amount to granting at the interlocutory stage the very relief which the applicant seeks in the Original Application. We, therefore, find no justification for continuation of the interim protection granted vide order dated 10.06.2026, which is liable to be recalled and vacated.

As regards the challenge to the impugned termination letter dated 28.04.2026, having regard to the nature of the applicant’s engagement, the terms governing his contractual appointment, and the explanation furnished by the respondents regarding discontinuance of the concerned functions pursuant to the strategic business arrangement, we do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned action in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant’s claim for continuation or regularisation cannot be founded merely upon the length of his contractual service or successive renewals, particularly when the engagement itself remained contractual in nature. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the Original Application.

Accordingly, Recall Application No. 3071 of 2026, filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is allowed. The interim order dated 10.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 665 of 2026 is hereby recalled and vacated. Consequently, O.A. No. 665 of 2026 is dismissed, being devoid of merit. The parties shall bear their own costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.