Somveer Yadav vs North East Centre For Technology And ... on 18 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Somveer Yadav vs North East Centre For Technology And ... on 18 March, 2026

1. The Petitioner entered service in 2011 as a contractual Laboratory Assistant under the Mission for Geospatial Applications in the Department of Science and Technology and continued thereafter, without interruption, under the North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach1 after 1 "NECTAR"

W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 1 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 the institutional shift. In the first writ petition [W.P.(C) 5606/2017], the challenge now stands confined to the claim for pay parity/regular pay scale of Laboratory Assistant, the Petitioner having restricted the petition to that relief at the admission stage. The second writ petition [W.P.(C) 1802/2021] is directed against the subsequent decision of 30 th December, 2020 by which the Petitioner, after participating in a fresh recruitment process, was not selected and his engagement came to an end. Both petitions present different facets of a single grievance: unequal treatment during service and arbitrariness at the point of exit.

2. Since these two writ petitions arise out of the same employment relationship, concern the same Petitioner, and raise overlapping questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by a common order. Facts

3. The Petitioner was first engaged on 26th April, 2011 as a Laboratory Assistant on contract under the Mission for Geospatial Applications in the Department of Science and Technology2. The engagement was initially for six months with effect from 1st April, 2011 on a lump-sum remuneration of Rs.10,000 per month, which was extended from time to time by successive office orders through 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Petitioner continued in service under the Mission without break till 31st December, 2013.

4. While the Petitioner was so working, the institutional structure itself changed. In 2012, the Union Government approved the creation of NECTAR, as an autonomous body under DST, with its headquarters at Shillong. NECTAR was to take forward the work of two earlier mission- mode projects, namely the Mission for Geospatial Applications and the W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 2 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 National Mission on Bamboo Applications. In that process, 31 posts were created for NECTAR and the existing posts under those missions were transferred into the new body.

5. After that transition, the Petitioner was issued a fresh appointment letter dated 31st December, 2013 by NECTAR. By that letter he was appointed on contract for a fixed period of one year from the date of assuming charge, on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.37,000 per month. The appointment letter also stated that he would be governed by the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Centre as and when they came into force or were amended from time to time. Although the Petitioner had originally entered service as a Laboratory Assistant, the letter of 31 st December, 2013 did not separately describe any designation.

6. The Petitioner's engagement under NECTAR also continued thereafter by repeated renewals. The record shows successive extensions and renewals up to 31st December, 2020. By office order dated 29th January, 2018, his consolidated remuneration for the renewed period from 1 st January, 2018 to 30th June, 2018 was fixed at Rs.30,300 per month in place of Rs.27,500. His contractual engagement continued through 2018, 2019 and 2020.

7. In the meantime, the Petitioner instituted W.P.(C) 5606/2017. At the admission stage, the petition was confined to prayer (a) alone, and accordingly survives only insofar as it relates to the claim for pay parity. The claim for regularisation was not pressed.

8. In 2020, NECTAR began moving its functioning to Shillong and the later extensions of the Petitioner's contract were expressly linked with his 2 "DST"

W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 3 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 willingness to shift there. The office order dated 10 th January, 2020 stated that extension would be considered subject to his willingness to shift to NECTAR's office in Shillong by March 2020. The later orders of 30 th May, 2020, 10th June, 2020 and 15th July, 2020 also proceeded on that basis and contemplated shifting of contractual staff to Shillong.

9. On 30th October, 2020, NECTAR issued an advertisement inviting applications for various job positions on a purely contractual basis at Shillong, initially for six months. On 4th November, 2020 an office order was issued, followed by an email dated 5th November, 2020, requiring existing employees to apply in the prescribed form against the advertised positions. The Petitioner accordingly applied. During the pendency of W.P.(C) 5606/2017, he also moved an application seeking protection against any adverse consequence merely because he had been asked to apply under the fresh advertisement.

10. The Petitioner was shortlisted and interviewed pursuant to that recruitment process. Thereafter, by email dated 30th December, 2020, he was informed that the Selection Committee had not recommended his recruitment for the job positions for which he had applied. The same email stated that, as his contract was due to end on 31 st December, 2020, he should submit a "No Due Certificate" so that his salary for December 2020 and other dues could be released.

11. After receipt of that communication, the Petitioner withdrew the interlocutory application moved in W.P.(C) 5606/2017, with liberty to seek appropriate relief against the order dispensing with his services. The later writ petition was then filed to challenge the communication dated 30 th December, 2020 and the discontinuance that followed. It is in that W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 4 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 background that both writ petitions now come up together: the earlier one on the limited issue of pay parity, and the later one on the legality of the Petitioner's discontinuance at the end of December 2020. Petitioner's submissions

12. The Petitioner contends that he remained in continuous engagement from 2011 to 2020, initially under the Mission for Geospatial Applications and thereafter under NECTAR, which demonstrates that the work performed was of a perennial nature and not truly contractual.

13. Despite discharging similar duties as others, he was continued on consolidated remuneration while similarly placed persons were granted regular pay scales, amounting to discrimination and violating the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 14.

14. The requirement in 2020 to apply afresh pursuant to a new advertisement, despite long years of service, is challenged as arbitrary. The subsequent selection process, in which he was declared unsuccessful, is characterised as a device to remove him, resulting in the termination of his engagement.

15. It is further urged that the Respondents have, in effect, replaced one contractual employee with another, which is impermissible in law, as held in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors.,3 and that the recruitment process was merely a camouflage to dispense with the Petitioner's services.

16. The absence of disclosure of selection criteria or reasons for non- selection indicate a lack of transparency and arbitrariness. The sequence of events, particularly in light of the earlier proceedings initiated by the W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 5 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

17. The discontinuance of service after long years of engagement has serious civil consequences, adversely affecting the Petitioner's livelihood. Respondent's submissions

18. The Respondents contend that the Petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis for fixed terms, initially under the Mission for Geospatial Applications and thereafter under NECTAR. His engagement was governed by the terms of the contract, which clearly provided for its temporary nature and termination upon expiry. The Petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned regular post.

19. NECTAR, being an autonomous body, had obtained approval for creation of certain posts; however, no sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant existed to which the Petitioner could lay claim. Any regular appointments were required to be made through open recruitment in accordance with applicable rules.

20. It is further submitted that continuation of a contractual engagement does not confer any right to regularisation or to continued employment. The Petitioner's engagement, being time-bound, came to an end by efflux of time on 31st December, 2020, and no enforceable right to renewal exists.

21. With regard to the events of 2020, it is contended that the decision to issue a fresh advertisement for contractual positions at Shillong was taken pursuant to directions of DST in letter dated 14th July, 2020, which required fresh recruitment while permitting existing contractual employees to apply. The Petitioner participated in the said process and was considered along with other candidates.

1992 (4) SCC 118 W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 6 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09

22. The Petitioner was not selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, and such non-selection cannot be interfered with in the absence of any demonstrable mala fides or illegality. The process was an open and competitive one, and cannot be characterised as a mere device to remove the Petitioner.

23. The Respondents further deny that the Petitioner was replaced by another contractual employee in any impermissible manner, and assert that the recruitment process involved fresh selection rather than a simple substitution.

24. As regards the claim for pay parity, it is contended that the Petitioner has failed to establish equivalence with any regular employee in terms of qualifications, duties, or mode of appointment. Employees appointed through regular process cannot be compared with contractual appointees drawing consolidated remuneration.

25. It is also urged that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner pertain to regularisation or distinct factual contexts and are not applicable to the present case.

Issues

26. In light of the rival submissions and the limited scope in which the two writ petitions now survive, the following issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Petitioner has established parity in duties, responsibilities and conditions of service with the claimed comparators so as to invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(ii) Whether the discontinuance of the Petitioner's engagement with effect from 31st December, 2020, pursuant to his non-selection in the recruitment process undertaken in 2020, is arbitrary or otherwise unsustainable in law.

W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 7 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

27. The Petitioner's claim for pay parity does not merit acceptance on the present record. The Petitioner served throughout on contractual terms and for consolidated remuneration. His engagement under NECTAR began with the letter dated 31st December, 2013. The engagement was for a fixed term, terminable on notice, and liable to be shifted to the headquarters or to any office in the North Eastern States. While the record demonstrates continuity of work, it does not, without more, place him in the same legal position as a regular employee.

28. A claim of pay parity cannot rest on long service alone, or on general allegations that the Petitioner was treated unfairly. The comparison must rest on a firmer foundation. The Court must be satisfied that there is real similarity in the post held, the qualifications required, the nature of the work, the level of responsibility, and the mode of appointment. That is where the case loses shape.

29. The Petitioner has specifically referred to the case of the employees Sanam Nagpal and Ankit Srivastava, contending that they were similarly placed, initially engaged on consolidated remuneration, and were subsequently granted regular pay scales in NECTAR. However, beyond this assertion, the record does not disclose the mode of their appointment, the qualifications possessed by them, or the nature and extent of duties discharged, so as to establish that they stood on the same footing as the Petitioner in all material respects.

30. The Petitioner has also referred to Rajendra Jena and Somanath Nath, alleging that they were at par with him in the earlier engagement and were W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 8 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 subsequently granted higher pay scales and regularised. This contention also does not advance the Petitioner's case. Apart from a bare assertion, there is no material on record to establish that they were appointed through the same process, discharged identical duties, or held posts comparable in all material respects.

31. The comparators relied upon are neither consistent nor supported by a clear factual foundation. The record does not reveal a clear and cogent basis on which it can be said that the Petitioner and those relied upon by him stood on the same footing in all material respects. Nor is there enough to show that the work assigned to him remained identical throughout to that of any regular post carrying a pay scale.

32. A perusal of the letter dated 15th July, 2010, shows that the duties assigned to the Petitioner at Shillong included looking after matters relating to office maintenance, guest house work, land development, and stores concerning survey equipment. These functions reflect a mix of operational and support responsibilities, rather than duties corresponding to a clearly defined technical post. In such circumstances, it is not possible to identify a comparable regular post so as to sustain a claim for pay parity. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' can extend to temporary employees, but only where genuine parity is established. It does not arise from broad resemblance or from length of service by itself.

33. The authorities cited by the Petitioner also do not advance his case. The Petitioner's reliance on Putti Lal4 is misplaced. That decision applies where daily-wage employees are shown to be discharging duties similar to those of regular employees. In the present case, no such equivalence has W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 9 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 been established. In any event, Putti Lal recognises only a limited entitlement to the minimum of the pay scale and does not support a claim for full pay parity or regularisation.

34. Nor does the principle in Jagjit Singh5 assist the Petitioner on the present record. That decision makes it clear that the burden lies on the claimant to establish parity in duties, responsibilities, and the nature of the post. The mere assertion of similarity, or reliance on isolated instances, is not sufficient. In the present case, the Petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate that he discharged duties comparable in responsibility, and sensitivity to those of the persons with whom parity is claimed. The factual foundation necessary to invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has, therefore, not been made good. The law cited by the Petitioner does not, in the end, sit squarely with the limited questions that actually remain for decision.

35. The first writ petition must therefore fail. The Petitioner may well feel, and not without reason, that he was kept on for years without being given either a proper place in the structure or the security of a regular employee. But a sense of unfairness, however genuine, does not confer a legal entitlement to a pay scale. W.P.(C) 5606/2017, as it now survives, does not make out a case for interference.

Whether the discontinuance of the Petitioner's engagement is arbitrary?

36. The Court now turns to W.P.(C) 1802/2021, wherein the Petitioner challenges the manner of termination of his engagement. The record indicates that the Petitioner continued in service for several years and that 4 State of U.P. v Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 5 State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 10 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 his contractual engagement was extended in 2020. Thereafter, pursuant to a fresh advertisement, he was required to apply afresh, which he did, the same being subject to the outcome of the writ petition and without prejudice to his rights and contentions, in terms of the order of this Court. He participated in the selection process and was interviewed. By an email dated 30 th December, 2020, he was informed that the Selection Committee had not recommended his candidature and, as his contract was due to expire on 31 st December, 2020, he was directed to complete the formalities for clearance of dues. The Petitioner contends that this sequence of events was adopted as a device to effect his removal through a fresh contractual selection process.

37. The Petitioner's claim, however, encounters difficulty on a different plane. His engagement under NECTAR was contractual throughout. The letter of 31st December, 2013 did not place him against a sanctioned regular post. Nor does the Ministry of Finance approval creating 31 posts for NECTAR disclose any sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant to which he can relate his claim. From the earlier round of litigation onwards, the Respondents have consistently maintained that the work assigned to him was not tied to a regular sanctioned post in NECTAR and that regular appointments, if made, would have to be through open recruitment. While this may not address all the grievances urged, it is sufficient to establish that mere continuity of engagement cannot, in law, be construed as a right to continuation.

38. The communication dated 14th July 2020 from the Department of Science and Technology also has to be kept in view. It limited the extension of existing contractual staff up to 31st December, 2020, or until the shift to Shillong, whichever was earlier. At the same time, it directed NECTAR to W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 11 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 issue advertisement for the Shillong positions afresh, while allowing the existing contractual employees to apply and be considered along with others. That was the framework within which NECTAR acted. The Petitioner may say that the process was unfair in its design or operation, but it was not some informal or concealed device suddenly put in motion only to remove him.

39. It is no doubt true that an ad hoc or contractual employee should not ordinarily be replaced by another similarly situated employee in an arbitrary or casual manner, as noticed in Piara Singh.6 However, for such a principle to apply, it must first be shown that there has, in fact, been a replacement. In the present case, the Petitioner has neither identified any specific individual who has been appointed in his place, nor demonstrated that the post held by him continued in the same form and was filled by another contractual appointee. In the absence of such material, the allegation of replacement remains unsubstantiated. The record, including the advertisement issued in 2020, instead reflects a broader recruitment exercise across multiple posts and functional domains, rather than a one-to-one substitution. The mere fact that a fresh selection process was undertaken, in which the Petitioner participated but was not selected, does not establish that he was replaced in the manner contemplated in Piara Singh.

40. The Petitioner has also urged that the selection process was a sham, or in the nature of a camouflage, on the ground that the Respondents have not disclosed the reasons for his non-selection, the select list, or the basis on which other candidates were preferred. While the absence of such disclosure may raise concerns of transparency, it does not, by itself, vitiate the process. Judicial review in matters of contractual selection is limited, and the Court W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 12 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 does not sit in appeal unless the process is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest unfairness. In the present case, the allegation of victimisation rests primarily on inference, namely that the Petitioner, having earlier approached the Court, was required to apply afresh and was thereafter not selected. Such circumstances, without more, are insufficient to establish mala fides. On the material presently available, the allegation remains unsubstantiated.

41. The Petitioner also says that others similarly placed were treated more favourably and that even after his exit contractual personnel continued in NECTAR. Even if one assumes that contractual staffing did continue in some form, that still does not complete the case. The Court would need to know who those persons were, the terms on which they were engaged, the posts they held, the route by which they came in, and whether their qualifications and functions were in fact comparable to the Petitioner's. The record does not yield that degree of clarity. While the grievance may be understandable, the material on record is insufficient to substantiate it.

42. The authorities cited on behalf of the Petitioner do not take the matter much further. Most of them move on a different plane. Jaggo7 and Pawan Sharma8 are, in substance, decisions on regularisation or on the conditions in which long and continuous service may justify that relief. Reliance placed on Shripal9 is also misplaced. That decision turned on a case of illegal termination in violation of statutory safeguards, in the context of workmen discharging clearly identifiable perennial duties comparable to those of 6 State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 7 Jaggo v Union of India, AIR 2025 SC 296 8 Pawan Sharma and Ors. v Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2025:DHC:9789 - DB 9 Shripal and Ors. v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 13 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09 regular employees. In the present case, the Petitioner's engagement was purely contractual and came to an end upon the expiry of its term following a fresh selection process in which he participated but was not selected. Further, no equivalence in duties or a comparable post has been established on the present record. The decision in Shripal, which rests on materially different facts, does not assist the Petitioner.

43. The regularisation cases cited by the Petitioner cannot therefore assist him in any direct way. That relief is no longer alive in the first writ, and it cannot be brought back indirectly through the second. The second writ petition must accordingly fail.

44. W.P.(C) 5606/2017 and W.P.(C) 1802/2021 are accordingly dismissed. If any admissible dues of the Petitioner remain to be released in terms of the Respondents' own record, the same shall be processed and paid within six weeks.

45. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 18, 2026/as W.P.(C) 5606/2017 & W.P.(C) 1802/2021 Page 14 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 21:08:09

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders