Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikas Bhatia vs M/O Communications on 21 May, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.3998/2015
Orders reserved on : 08.05.2026
Orders pronounced on : 21.05.2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shri Vikas Bhatia,
S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bhatia,
R/o A-46, Flat No. 2,
Freedom Fighters Enclave,
Neb Sarai, Saket,
New Delhi-110068
(Aged about 30 years)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology,
New Delhi.
2. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
(CDAC)
Through its Executive Director,
Anusandhan Bhawan,
C-56/1, Institutional Area,
Sector-62, Noida-201307.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 2 OA No.3998/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders placed at Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2; and
(b) Declare that the applicant is entitled to continuity in contractual service for further period of five years and also entitled to be considered for migration from contractual position to regular position according to the bye-laws/rules 18.1.2 with all consequential benefits;
(c) Issue appropriate directions against the respondents to the aforesaid effect;
(d) To award the costs of the proceedings; and Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was appointed as 'Grade Based Contract Engineer' in the respondent organization at Pune vide offer of appointment dated 14.08.2007 (Annexure A/3) after conferment of Diploma in Advance Computing (DAC) by the respondent organization (Annexure A/4 [colly.]). As per para 3.2 of the terms and conditions of offer of appointment, there was a probation period of one year and upon satisfactory completion of the period of probation, the contract would be treated for a period of five years, including probationary period. It is a further stipulation therein that the contract of five years service is extendable by another five years subject to the continued satisfactory performance and availability of projects at C-DAC.
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 3 OA No.3998/2015
2.1 In pursuance thereto, the applicant joined at C-DAC at Pune.
Vide letter dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure A/5), the applicant was informed of his work performance conducted by the Performance Appraisal Review Committee of the respondents and his probation period was declared successful and it was further informed that his contract as Grade Based Contract Engineer in C-DAC for the remaining period is continued.
2.2 Thereafter, the applicant was promoted to the next higher grade i.e. E-II vide letter dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure A/6) and subsequently, the applicant was appointed at the E-II Level itself by the Noida Centre of the respondents w.e.f. 03.10.2011 (Annexure A/7) for which he was relieved from the Pune Centre vide letter dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure A/8). It is relevant to point out here that the applicant was in the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in Pay Band-3 i.e. Rs.15600-39100/-, while he was at Pune office. Upon his joining at Noida Centre, his appointment was in the same Pay Band i.e. PB-3 Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-.
2.3 It is also stated that since both the Centres are of the respondent- organization albeit at different stations, the applicant maintains his continuity of service, as there has been no change in the designation and also keeping in view of the fact that the employer is the same organization irrespective of the fact that the respondents considered the engagement of the applicant at Noida office as a fresh contract, prescribing a fresh probation period, which the applicant has completed successfully. The applicant was granted annual increment vide order 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 4 OA No.3998/2015 dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure A/10) and was granted further annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2013 vide order dated 17.07.2013 (Annexure A/11).
2.4 It is also stated that however, even before the completion of the prescribed contract period, the respondent-organization sought to conduct review of its employees, including the applicant which led to the filing of the representations by others and also the applicant objecting the said review (Annexure A/12 [colly]). However, since the representations were not being responded to, many of the staff, including the applicant along with two others approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.3394 (sic)/2013 (Shri Pradeep Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others) before this Tribunal. Many of the similarly placed persons had also filed their OAs (OA Nos.950/2012, 949/2012, 964/2012 and 990/2012) before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. The said OAs were decided by the Ernakulam Bench in favour of the staff vide common Order/Judgment dated 05.09.2013 and orders were issued that the extension ought to be given till the completion of the five years.
2.5 Meanwhile the applicant had also represented (Annexure A/15) against the award of three years contract to him by the Noida office while others have been given a contract for a period of five years in accordance with Bye-laws of CDAC. According to the applicant, as per the Bye-laws of the CDAC, the contract period has to be five years and not three years and thus the Noida office had no authority to curtail the 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 5 OA No.3998/2015 five years period to three years period, however, it was so done arbitrary and in gross discrimination to the applicant.
2.6 Having regard to the fact that the facts and issues involved in OA No.3394/2013 and other connected OAs were similar to the aforesaid OAs decided by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide common Order/Judgment dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure A/13) directed the respondents to give the same benefits to the applicants of these OAs as were granted to the applicants of OA Nos.950/2012, 949/2012, 964/2012 and 990/2012 by Order/Judgment dated 5.9.2013 of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. In pursuance thereto, the applicant was given extension of contract upto 31.01.2015 vide order dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure A/14) even though the same ought to have been extended upto September/October 2016. 2.7 In the meanwhile, EPF Account of the applicant has also been transferred from the Pune Centre to the Noida Centre at the instance of the applicant and on requisition of the authorities of the Noida Centre. In January, 2014, the applicant was transferred from Noida to Jaipur office (Annexure A/16) However, the transfer order was not given effect to.
2.8 Subsequently, on 08.12.2014 (Annexure A/17), the applicant had submitted further representation to the respondents that since the Tribunal in OA No.3394/2013 and other connected cases had upheld the right of the applicants therein for a contract of five years then he ought not be considered in the forthcoming review, as his review would 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 6 OA No.3998/2015 be due only in September-October, 2016. Nonetheless, the respondents went ahead with their illegal review and later vide impugned order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure A/1), the respondents have terminated the services of the applicant on a alleged false and cooked up premise that the Performance Review Committee has judged him as "Below Average"
and "Unfit" and thus vide impugned order, the applicant has been thrown out of his contractual engagement w.e.f. 31.01.2015.
2.9 Immediately, the applicant submitted his representation on
31.01.2015 (Annexure A/18) against the aforesaid order of termination of his services. Vide reply dated 09.02.2015 (Annexure A/19), the respondents informed the applicant that his representation would be considered appropriately in view of the orders passed by this Tribunal and other applicable guidelines.
2.10 Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application on 10.02.2015 (Annexure A/20) for providing him copies of all his ACRs from the year 2007 till 31.01.2015 and also sought a copy of his service book for the entire service. The applicant has also represented for communication of the marks awarded to him in the review and the process of review vide his representation dated 09.02.2015. Finding no response on the aforesaid representations, the applicant resorted to RTI proceedings vide applications dated 17.02.2015 (Annexure A/21 [colly.]) and sought the certified copy of all his ACRs from the first date of joining i.e. 27.08.2007 to 31.01.2015; certified copy of his entire service book from 27.08.2007 to 31.01.2015 and also the complete information/certified copy of the results of the GBCE reviews held in the 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 7 OA No.3998/2015 year 2012, 2013 and 2014 at each CDAC centre in India, the information under which bye-laws/rule/OM/directive, all the aforesaid reviews were held from 2012 to 2014 at each CDAC centre of India and information as to how many employees obtained "below benchmark" and "poor rating" in the reviews and in which year and how many of them are still working in their respective CDAC centres. The applicant had also sought the detailed information, including the proceedings of the review held in the month of December, 2014 at CDAC Noida Centre and on the basis of bye-laws/rule/OM/directives, the review had been undertaken along with the marksheets of this review and copy of the noting file, including the result of the review. The applicant further sought the certified copy of the marks obtained by him in the review dated 11.12.2014 and composition and the details of the committee members, who created committee and the rule behind the creation of the committee. 2.11 After repeated requests and reminders, ultimately the applicant has been supplied only his ACRs/APARs for the years 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10 (while the applicant was at Pune Centre) and the ACRs from 03.10.2011 to 30.06.2012, 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012, 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 and 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2013, January to June, 2014 (while the applicant has been at Noida Centre) (Annexure A/22). It is submitted that for the period starting from July, 2014, no APARs have been initiated.
2.12 It is stated that perusal of the aforesaid APARs reveals that all three APARs of the applicant at Pune Centre are "Excellent/Outstanding". The APARs at the Noida Centre i.e. from 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 8 OA No.3998/2015 03.10.2011 to 30.06.2012 records the applicant as "Very Good". Similar is the position for the APAR pertaining to the period 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012. Later two APARs i.e. 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 and 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2013, graded the applicant's work and performance as "Satisfactory". Thereafter, from January to June, 2014, the applicant's work and performance has been graded as "Excellent". Thus, in view of the above said position, there is no justifiable reason available to the respondents to have graded the applicant "Below Benchmark"
and "Unfit" by the Review Committee. It is also stated that even the APAR recorded as "Satisfactory" has never been communicated to the applicant in due course of service enabling him to represent against the same. As such, the said APAR could not have been taken into adverse consideration by the authorities against the applicant unless it is duly communicated to the applicant calling for his representation and in the event the representation being made, the same ought to be considered.
It is trite in law that any material, which is treated or likely to be treated as against the concerned employee, is required to be firstly communicated to the employee and his representation against the said adversity is called for and considered. The applicant further wishes to submit at this stage that he has never been communicated of any adversity or deficiency in his work and no warning has ever been issued to him. No counseling regarding alleged shortcoming has been done and no advisory memo has also been ever issued to the applicant. The applicant has shown the door under the guise of "performance review"
only because he has been instrumental in the earlier litigation 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 9 OA No.3998/2015 (mentioned above) for which he was orally reprimanded by the ED, which obviously is being denied now by the respondents. However, vide impugned order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure A/2), the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant. 2.13 It is further stated that the respondents, in order to deny the benefit of provisions of the respondent-organization contained in their Bye-laws (Annexure A/23) admitting permanent absorption of a contract based employee, by way of migration from contractual position to regular position under para 18 of the Bye-laws, the applicant has been thrown out of service under the garb of performance review. 2.14 It is also stated that in an identical situation bearing OA No.1398/2015, titled Lalit Kumar vs. C-DAC, this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.08.2015 has allowed the OA of the said applicant (Annexure A/24).
2.15 Thus, in these facts and circumstances, the applicant is left with no other legal efficacious remedy except to approach this Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim and grounds urged in support thereof.
4. This matter was heard by us on 4.5.2026 on which date the following order as passed:-
2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 10 OA No.3998/2015 "It is observed that the matter is of the year 2015 and is part heard. The order dated 14.09.2016 in O.A/3998/2015 reads as under:
Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idam that issues involved in the instant O.A are directly and substantially in issue in Writ Petition No. 9857/2015 which is pending for final hearing on 29.09.2016 in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Adjourned to 24.10.2016 for arguments and to await the decision in the indicated Writ Petition.
Today, Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid Writ Petition, i.e. W.P. No.9857/2015, has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order/ judgment dated 13.08.2025. He has placed on record a copy of such order/ judgment.
He further submits that this Tribunal has passed an order/ judgment dated 03.09.2025 in OA/1988/2016, titled as Vineet Kumar Birla & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. following the judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra). He accordingly presses that the present OA may also be disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra).
On the first call, the matter was passed over at the request of learned proxy counsel for the respondents.
This is the revised call and Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents has joined the proceedings through VC. He submits that he is in middle of an argument in the matter before Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal and he is only appearing because of the fact brought to his notice that this matter has been passed over for his appearance and argument to be made by him.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that this matter may be listed on some other date in order to enable him to appear and make the submissions.
Showing indulgence, list the matter on 08.05.2026 as Sl.No.1 among the part heard matters.
It is made clear that on the next date of hearing no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter. It is further ordered that keeping in view the aforesaid fact and also the fact that the matter relates to the year 2015 and the same has been adjourned on 61 occasions, the Registry is directed to constitute a special Bench atleast for this matter, on the next date fixed, i.e. 08.05.2026, ofcourse subject to approval of the Hon'ble Chairman."
5. Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was purely a contractual employee and had no vested or indefeasible right either to continue in service beyond the contractual tenure or to claim regularization/migration to a regular post as a matter of right, as the engagement of the applicant was governed 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 11 OA No.3998/2015 strictly by the terms and conditions of the contract as well as the applicable bye-laws and policies of the respondent-organization. Thus, the applicant's appointment at the Noida Centre was a fresh contractual appointment independent of his earlier engagement at Pune Centre and, therefore, the applicant cannot claim continuity of service from the initial appointment made at Pune. According to the respondents, the applicant had accepted the fresh terms and conditions applicable to the Noida appointment, including the prescribed probation period and contractual tenure and is, therefore, estopped from challenging the same at a belated stage.
5.1 Further, it is submitted that the applicant was subjected to periodical performance review in accordance with the prevailing policy applicable to Grade Based Contract Employees (GBCEs). The Performance Review Committee assessed the overall performance, conduct, suitability and utility of the applicant and, upon such assessment, found the applicant "Below Average" and "Unfit" for continuation. Based on the recommendations of the competent Review Committee, the competent authority decided not to extend/continue the contractual engagement of the applicant beyond 31.01.2015 and accordingly issued the order dated 30.01.2015 which is impugned in the present OA.
5.2 Learned counsel denied the allegations of arbitrariness, mala fides or victimization raised by the applicant and has submitted that the decision was taken objectively in administrative exigency and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Learned counsel also 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 12 OA No.3998/2015 contended that the applicant cannot seek judicial review over the subjective assessment made by the expert Review Committee unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by malice, perversity or violation of statutory provisions. The applicant has no enforceable right to seek migration from contractual position to regular position under Clause 18.1.2 of the Bye-laws, as such migration is neither automatic nor mandatory and is subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions, satisfactory performance, organizational requirements and availability of vacancies. According to the respondents, mere continuation on contractual basis does not confer any right upon the applicant to claim absorption or regular appointment.
5.3 So far as judgments relied upon by the applicant, including the cases decided by the Ernakulam Bench and the decision in Lalit Kumar's case is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same are distinguishable on facts and would not automatically govern the present case, as the each case is to be decided on its own factual matrix and the applicant cannot claim parity as a matter of right. 5.4 Learned counsel further submitted that adequate opportunity was afforded to the applicant and that his representations were duly considered by the competent authority before rejection vide order dated 15.05.2015 and that no any adverse material was relied upon behind the back of the applicant in violation of principles of natural justice. On the strength of above contentions, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application being devoid of merit.
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 13 OA No.3998/2015
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as the judgments as referred above.
7. Having regard to the above and on perusal of records, it emerges that it is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed as Grade Based Contract Engineer (GBCE) at the Pune Centre of the respondent-organization vide offer of appointment dated 14.08.2007 and, after successful completion of probation, his contractual engagement was continued. It is further admitted that the applicant was subsequently promoted to E-II grade and thereafter joined the Noida Centre of the respondent-organization w.e.f. 03.10.2011 in the same pay band and grade pay. It is also not disputed that the applicant continued to serve under the respondent-organization and was granted annual increments during his tenure. The parties are also ad idem that the applicant was subjected to performance review by the Review Committee and, pursuant to such review, the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 came to be issued discontinuing his contractual engagement w.e.f. 31.01.2015. It is further admitted that the applicant submitted representations against the said action, which were ultimately rejected vide order dated 15.05.2015. It is also undisputed that the applicant had earlier participated in litigations concerning extension of contractual tenure of similarly situated GBCE employees and that certain orders had been passed by different Benches of this Tribunal in favour of such employees. However, the parties are at variance with regard to the legal effect of such orders, the nature of the applicant's engagement at Noida Centre, the validity of the performance review process, and the 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 14 OA No.3998/2015 applicant's claim for continuity of service and migration to a regular position under the Bye-laws of the respondent-organization.
8. Having regard to above facts and circumstances, we find that the following issues are to be adjudicated in this case:-
(i) Whether the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 terminating/discontinuing the contractual engagement of the applicant are sustainable in law? and
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim continuity of contractual service and consideration for migration from contractual position to regular position under the applicable Bye-laws/rules of the respondent-organization?
9. With regard to Issue No.(i) as noted in para 8 above, i.e, whether the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 terminating/discontinuing the contractual engagement of the applicant are sustainable in law, it is an admitted position that the applicant was initially appointed as a GBCE in the respondent- organization in the year 2007 and, after successful completion of probation, continued in service and was also granted promotion and annual increments from time to time. It is also not in dispute that while working at the Noida Centre, the applicant was subjected to a performance review and thereafter his contractual engagement came to be discontinued vide order dated 30.01.2015 on the ground that he had been assessed as "Below Average" and "Unfit" by the Review Committee. However, while rejecting the representations of the applicant, the respondents have stated that "as regards non-renewal/extension of 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 15 OA No.3998/2015 contract, it will be appreciated that your contract has not been terminated, as alleged by you, as the contract period came to an end by efflux of time on 31.01.2015. However, as the performance Committee comprising experts both from CDAC and outside Government organization, including SC/ST member, has adjudged you as "unfit", your contract could not be renewed beyond 31.01.2015." The core grievance of the applicant is that such assessment was arbitrary, founded upon uncommunicated material and contrary to the service records available on record.
9.1 The respondents have strongly contended that the applicant was merely a contractual employee and had no indefeasible right to continue in service beyond the contractual tenure. There can be no quarrel with the settled proposition that a contractual employee ordinarily cannot claim continuation or regularization as a matter of right dehors the governing rules and terms of appointment. However, it is equally well settled that even in matters concerning contractual or temporary employment, the State and its instrumentalities are bound to act fairly, reasonably and non-arbitrarily in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any administrative action affecting civil consequences must satisfy the test of fairness and transparency. 9.2 In the present case, the materials placed on record reveal that the APARs/ACRs of the applicant for substantial part of his service career reflected gradings such as "Excellent", "Outstanding" and "Very Good". Even the subsequent gradings of "Satisfactory" admittedly were never communicated to the applicant during the course of service. The law is 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 16 OA No.3998/2015 now well settled that even an entry which may not be strictly adverse, but which is likely to affect promotional prospects, continuity or other service benefits of an employee, must be communicated to the concerned employee to enable him to make an effective representation. In Dev Dutt v. Union of India, reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that every entry in the ACR/APAR having civil consequences is required to be communicated to the concerned employee. The said principle was reiterated in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 566, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that fairness in public administration requires communication of all entries which may adversely impact service prospects.
9.3 In the instant case, despite repeated representations and RTI applications, the respondents failed to disclose the complete basis on which the applicant was suddenly assessed as "Below Average" and "Unfit". Significantly, no material has been placed before this Tribunal to demonstrate that any warning, counseling, advisory memo or deficiency memo was ever issued to the applicant during his tenure. The abrupt assessment of unsuitability, in the face of earlier satisfactory or better gradings, without disclosure of the underlying criteria or marks awarded by the Review Committee, clearly renders the decision-making process vulnerable on the touchstone of fairness and transparency. 9.4 The respondents have argued that the assessment made by an expert Review Committee ought not to be interfered with in judicial review. The said proposition is again well settled; however, judicial 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 17 OA No.3998/2015 deference to expert opinion is not absolute. Where the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, non-consideration of relevant material, consideration of uncommunicated adverse material or violation of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal would be justified in exercising the power of judicial review.
9.5 It is also apt to note that the stand taken by the respondents suffers from a clear inconsistency and reflects a dual standard, which is legally unsustainable. While the respondents seek to justify the discontinuance of the applicant on the basis of the Review Committee's assessment declaring him "Below Average" and "Unfit" vide order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure A/1) and simultaneously while rejecting the representations they also stated that the applicant's contract merely expired by efflux of time on 31.01.2015 and was not terminated. Both stands are mutually contradictory. Had the engagement truly come to an end simpliciter by efflux of time, there was no occasion to conduct a performance review and record adverse findings regarding the applicant's suitability. Moreover, in absence of any communicated adverse remarks, warnings, or disciplinary proceedings during the tenure of engagement, the abrupt declaration of the applicant as "unfit" appears unsupported by objective criteria. The respondents cannot simultaneously rely upon adverse findings to justify the discontinuance and yet contend that no punitive or stigmatic action was taken. Such contradictory reasoning reflects non-application of mind and renders the impugned action unsustainable in law.
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 18 OA No.3998/2015
9.6 The conduct of the respondents also assumes significance from
the fact that similarly situated contractual employees had approached different Benches of this Tribunal challenging premature review and discontinuance of contractual tenure, and the Ernakulam Bench as well as the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had granted relief in favour of such employees by directing continuation till completion of the contractual period. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he ought not to have been subjected to premature review before expiry of the contractual tenure cannot be said to be wholly devoid of substance. 9.7 Furthermore, once the respondents themselves had continued the applicant for several years, granted him promotion and annual increments, the plea that his performance suddenly became "Below Average" without any preceding material or communicated deficiency appears difficult to sustain. Administrative fairness demands that an employee should know the basis on which an adverse decision affecting his livelihood is proposed to be taken.
9.8 We are conscious of the fact that continuation of a contractual employee cannot ordinarily be directed, as a matter of course. Nevertheless, where the termination/discontinuance is founded upon an arbitrary or procedurally unfair assessment, the action cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. In the facts of the present case, the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 appear to have been passed without adhering to the minimum requirements of fairness and transparency and by relying upon material which was either never communicated to the applicant or never disclosed in entirety despite 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 19 OA No.3998/2015 repeated requests. Accordingly, Issue No.(i) is answered in favour of the applicant and against the respondents to the extent that the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 cannot be sustained in law being arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
10. So far as Issue No.(ii) as noted in para 8 above, i.e., whether the applicant is entitled to claim continuity of contractual service and consideration for migration from contractual position to regular position under the applicable Bye-laws/rules of the respondent- organization is concerned, we observe that the applicant has claimed that his service from Pune Centre to Noida Centre constituted continuous service under the same respondent-organization and, therefore, he was entitled to continuity of contractual engagement as well as consideration for migration to a regular position under Clause 18.1.2 of the Bye-laws. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the appointment at Noida Centre constituted a fresh contractual engagement independent of the earlier appointment at Pune Centre and, therefore, the applicant cannot claim continuity or regularization as a matter of right.
10.1 It is true that mere continuation in contractual service does not automatically confer a right to regularization or permanent absorption. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, clearly lays down that regularization cannot be claimed contrary to statutory rules or through judicial fiat. However, the issue in the present case is not one of direct regularization de hors the rules, but 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 20 OA No.3998/2015 rather whether the applicant was entitled to fair consideration under the existing Bye-laws of the respondent-organization itself. 10.2 The material placed on record indicates that the respondent- organization had framed Bye-laws providing a channel for migration from contractual position to regular position subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. Therefore, once such a scheme or policy exists, eligible employees cannot be arbitrarily denied consideration thereunder. The record further reveals that the applicant had rendered long years of service under the respondent-organization, initially at Pune Centre and thereafter at Noida Centre in the same Pay Band and Grade Pay. He was also granted annual increments and other service- related benefits. Merely because the respondents described the Noida engagement as a fresh contract would not ipso facto obliterate the factual continuity of service rendered under the same organization, particularly when there was no break in service in the real sense. 10.3 The respondents have attempted to distinguish the judgments rendered in favour of similarly situated employees, including the decision in Lalit Kumar's case. However, no substantial distinguishing feature has been demonstrated before this Tribunal except the plea that each case depends on its own facts. On the contrary, the orders passed by coordinate Benches concerning similarly situated GBCE employees lend support to the contention that contractual employees under the respondent-organization were entitled to continuation till completion of the prescribed contractual tenure and fair consideration under the governing Bye-laws as evidently noted by 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 21 OA No.3998/2015 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal (W.P.(C) No.9857/2015, titled Union of India and others vs. Lalit Kumar) preferred by the respondents herein qua the Order/Judgment dated 25.8.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1398/2015 vide Order/Judgment dated 13.08.2025.
10.4 At this stage, it is profitable to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra) reads as under:-
13. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note a few clauses of the Bye-Laws of CDAC, which are relevant to the present dispute. Clause 14.1.5 of the Bye-Laws empowers the Director General of CDAC to create contract, project, and temporary post, other than regular posts, for making appointments thereto. Clause 18.1 of the Bye-Laws prescribe the terms of appointment. It is reproduced herein below:
"18.1 Terms of Appointment:
18.1.1 The Rules and Regulations and Bye Laws of the Society shall govern the terms of appointment of employees of the Society who join the services of the Society on its pay roll. All the employees who have already joined the Society will have an option of either continuing with service conditions as applicable prior to bringing these rules in force or accepting these rules.
18.1.2 All the employees except as covered in para 18.1.3 below, hereafter shall be recruited in the Society for the probation period as specified in the Recruitment Rules and on clearing this shall be employed on contract for the duration of 5 years. The contract shall be renewable based on satisfactory performance review for further periods of five years at a time, till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.
18.1.3 The Society may, in the interest of organization and on specific merits of the candidates, also recruit staff employees against regular vacancies. Such appointments shall, however, be made only in the pay scale of Rs.14300-400- 18300 and above.
18.1.4 Deleted.
18.1.5 Migration from Contractual position to Regular Position:
18.1.5.1 Such contractual employees (Employees recruited on pay scale and not on consolidated salary) who have 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 22 OA No.3998/2015 completed two or more contractual terms, covering a minimum of ten consecutive years, shall be considered for a regular appointment, provided, however, no such appointment shall extend beyond the age of superannuation. Such regularisation shall be based on merit and carried out through a duly constituted committee for this purpose and the candidates meeting the provisions of Recruitment Rules of C-DAC.
18.1.5.3 Considering the special situation of merger of four different organizations with different service conditions, which have come together, the following one-time provisions will be extended in respect of employees who will move into the merged organization:
(a) Those who enjoy pension benefits will carry forward the same along with other benefits when they opt for these new service conditions and will be deemed regular employees.
Such employees shall not avail GPF/ CPF/ EPF.
(b) All regular employees till the date of merger will upon accepting these service conditions will be deemed regular employees.
(c) All contractual employees (Employees recruited on pay scale and not on consolidated salary) who had joined the Society as on 31st December 1998 (including on probation) upon opting for these service conditions will be deemed regular employees.
(d) Those who joined the Society on contractual terms of service(Employees recruited on pay scale and not on consolidated salary) from 1.1.1999 till these rules come into effect, upon opting these service conditions, will be considered for regular position on a one time basis. 18.1.6 Designations: Besides the category and Grade designations viz. TS,MAS, MSS, MMS functional designations could be assigned by DG to the employees of Scientific, Technical and Administrative cadre. No Employee shall use a designation which is not provided for in the I^IOA / Rules / Byelaws / Staff Rules or the modifications approved by DG in this regard.
18.1.7 Recruitment and Promotion: Recruitment and promotion of employees shall be in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of the Society as approved by the Council. 18.1.8 Appointment on Project-Based Contract:
(a) The Competent Authority shall be competent to engage a person on contract in pay scale other than regular posts, upto the scale of posts, which do not require approval/ clearance of ACC.
(b) The Competent Authority shall be competent to engage a person on contract for projects for the duration of such projects, which have been approved by DIT or any other sponsoring organisation. Persons appointed on such 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 23 OA No.3998/2015 contract basis will be paid consolidated emoluments. The emoluments and terms of appointment shall be settled in advance between the Society and the incumbent. All other things being equal, preference may be given to these employees at the time of filling up of regular posts subject to merit and meeting the provisions of Recruitment Rules of C-
DAC.
18.1.9 Temporary Employees: Scientific, Technical, Business, Academic and Administrative/ Support Persons may be employed in Society as purely Temporary Employees for short-term assignments of the Society. Such Temporary Employees may be paid suitable honoraria /remuneration as may be decided by the Competent Authority from time to time.
18.1.10 Certificate of Physical Fitness: Every employee shall, prior to taking up his appointment, be medically examined and be certified fit for service by the medical officer/hospital approved by the Society.
18.1.11 Agreement: Every officer of the Society shall accept in writing the terms and conditions of his appointment before joining the services of the Society.
18.1.12 Probation: Every employee of the Society on his initial appointment will be on probation for a period as specified in the Recruitment Rules.
18.1.13 Resignation: An employee may resign from the Services of the Society. Employees employed to work up to superannuation shall do so by giving three months notice; others shall do so by giving one month's notice. The Society may adjust balance EL in credit in lieu of short fall in notice period in case of resignations. In case of employees on probation, the notice period shall be one month. The Appointing authority concerned shall accept resignations. Acceptance of resignations shall be subject to obtaining clearances from various departments.
18.1.14 Superannuation: The age of superannuation for all categories of employees shall be as per instructions of Govt. of India on the subject; presently it is 60 years. 18.1.15 Working Hours: The Society shall work for 5 days a week with Saturdays and Sundays as weekly off days. Every employee shall work for 8 hours a day. The Director General of the Society / Executive Directors/ Heads, of Centres of the Society shall be competent to declare any day as an off day and substitute any other day as a working day to meet any exigencies, disturbances during Bandh, strike etc. The working hours shall normally be 9.00 AM to 5.30 / 6.00 PM with 30/60 minutes lunch break. However, the respective centres shall decide actual timings generally within abovementioned time limits depending upon local conditions. The timing followed should not be a limiting factor to accomplish task assigned to an employee."
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 24 OA No.3998/2015
14. Clause 18.1.2. states that employees, except those who are recruited against regular vacancies, shall be employed on contract for a duration of five years, which shall be renewable based upon the satisfactory performance review for further period of five years at a time, till attaining the age of superannuation, that is, 60 years.
15. Clause 18.1.5 furthers provides for the migration of contractual employees to regular position and states that contractual employees who have completed two or more contractual terms, covering a minimum of 10 consecutive years, shall be considered for a regular appointment. It states that such regularization shall be based on merit and carried out through a duly constituted committee for this purpose.
16. Clause 18.1.8, on the other hand, provides for a project-based contract. It states that the competent authority shall be competent to engage a person on contract for the duration of such projects.
17. In the present case, from a reading of the appointment letter of the respondent, it is very apparent that the respondent was not appointed for a particular project or for the duration of any particular project. The appointment of the respondent was on a contractual/temporary basis and, therefore, was not governed by Clause 18.1.8 but by Clause 18.1.2 read with Clause 18.1.5 of the Bye-Laws.
18. The reliance placed by the learned ASG on the letter dated 01.02.2010, whereby the services of the respondent had been extended by a further period of five years commencing from 01.02.2010, to contend that the respondent was appointed on project basis and not on contract/temporary basis, cannot be accepted. One of the terms of this letter of extension, on which reliance has been made, reads as under:
"8. Your appointment is purely on contract on scale basis for a period of five years or coterminus with the project on which you will be deployed or until further orders, whichever is earlier. As such your services are contracted for meeting temporary increase in workload and it does not confer you any right for continued services or regularization in CDAC, Noida."
19. A reading of the above would clearly show that while no specific project is mentioned in the letter, even that apart, the letter further states that the appointment of the respondent is for meeting temporary increase in workload, not specifying a particular project in question.
20. Clause 18.1.5.3 (d) further states that all the employees who have joined the CDAC on contractual terms of service prior to the coming into force of the Bye-Laws, that is, 01.10.2006, shall be considered for a regular position on a one time basis.
21. Coming to the issue of whether the committee has rightly declared the respondent as „unfit‟ for regularization/continuation in service, we shall first note the relevant provisions of the OM dated 06.08.2013 in this regard.
22. Clauses 2 and 3 of the said OM prescribe the manner in which candidates are to be assessed by the Committee. Clause 2 provides that every staff member shall be given a maximum of 10 minutes for a presentation on his/her job accomplishments and assignments, and shall also submit a work report not exceeding two pages, duly signed by 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 25 OA No.3998/2015 them, for consideration of the Committee. Clause 3 further provides that each member of the committee shall evaluate the employee on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) on four aspects: (a) ACR Ratings; (b) Presentation; (c) Work Report; and (d) Personal Interaction.
23. In the present case, the petitioners had placed reliance on the rating sheet of the Review Committee meeting, which assessed the respondent as below average and as „unfit‟ to be continued in service. The same reads as under:
"Centre For Development of Advanced Computing S. Name Desig- Date of Average score given by the Members of the Total Final Category Fit/ Re No. nation expiry of review Score score (Extraordinary/ Unfit marks present (A+B+C (F/S) Above contract +D+E) Average/Below (F) Average/Poor) Chair Internal External External Internal man Member Member Member Member (A) Technic Academ (Industry HR (E) al(B) ic(C) Govt.Org ((D) 16 Lalit Senior 31.01.2015 6.72 6.87 6.87 6.87 6.69 34.02 6.80 Below Average UNFIT"
Kumar Technical Officer
24. The learned Tribunal, however, found that there was no basis for the conclusion arrived at by the committee. It gave a detailed account of the performance appraisal of the respondent over a period of time, wherein his work had been appreciated and he had even been promoted. We have already quoted the relevant findings of the learned Tribunal hereinabove.
25. Though the learned ASG sought to contend that the respondent‟s performance was judged by the Committee on the prescribed parameters, we find the same to be completely arbitrary in view of the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the respondent‟s track record.
26. While we agree with the learned ASG that it is not the function of the Court to re-assess the performance of an employee, in the given facts, where the Committee‟s report is found to be arbitrary and contrary to the performance record of the employee, the learned Tribunal has rightly interfered with it.
27. As far as, the plea of regularization is concerned, the learned Tribunal has merely placed reliance on Clause 18.1.5.2 read with 18.1.5.3 to direct that the respondent is entitled to be considered for migration from a contractual position. It has not directed that the respondent has to be regularised.
28. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous."
(emphasis supplied) 10.5 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew our attention to the fact that the aforesaid judgment/order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been assailed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 26 OA No.3998/2015 Court by filing SLP (C) No. 34966/2025 titled The Executive Director vs. Lalit Kumar & Ors. However, as evident from the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no stay of the operation of the impugned judgment has been granted. Consequently, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court continues to hold the field and remains operative as on date. 10.6 This Tribunal is, however, equally mindful that migration from contractual position to regular position under Clause 18.1.2, as quoted above, is not automatic and would necessarily depend upon fulfillment of eligibility conditions, satisfactory service record, organizational requirements and availability of vacancies. Therefore, while the applicant cannot claim regular appointment as a vested right, he certainly possesses a right to fair, non-arbitrary and objective consideration in terms of the applicable Bye-laws. 10.7 Keeping in mind the above, we are of the considered opinion that once the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure A/1) terminating the services of the applicant and letter/order dated 15.5.2015 (Annexure A/2) are found to be legally unsustainable, the consequential denial of consideration for continuity of service and migration under the Bye- laws also cannot survive automatically. Interests of justice would, therefore, require that the applicant be restored to the position, which he would have occupied but for the illegal discontinuance and his case be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable rules and Bye-laws. Accordingly, Issue No.(ii) is answered partly in favour of the applicant by holding that though the applicant cannot claim regularization or 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 27 OA No.3998/2015 migration to a regular post as an absolute vested right, he is entitled to continuity of contractual service and fair consideration for migration/absorption strictly in accordance with the applicable Bye- laws, rules and policy of the respondent-organization.
11. So far as reliance placed by the respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.29550/2019 and other connected cases, titled Union of India and others vs. Anjali Himanshu dated 20.12.2024 is concerned, in which we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras although allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the Order dated 29.7.2019 of Madras Bench of this Tribunal, however, observed as under:-
"38. This is a harsh case. The petitioner has been granted promotion from EI to EII and her ACRs for the periods 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 have applauded her efforts and considered her fit as per norms. She has, admittedly, put in service between 2004 and 2013 for a period of 9 years and surely, this must count for something.
39. In regard to a query from the Court as to whether she could be accommodated in some other location/project in C-DAC based on the aforesaid factors, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she had been assigned to the DGF Development Gateway Project, Bangalore and transferred to the project at Chennai at her request. Since the project has been completed, and there is no further sanction of funds, her absorption in that project is not possible.
40. Thus we must address the specific issue as to whether R1 had been mapped to a particular/specific project or whether her engagement had been a general one. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the letters of engagement. Her order of appointment is dated 21.09.2004 and offers her a contract post against a project vacancy in the Development Gateway Foundation (DGF) project at Bangalore subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and service conditions of the C-DAC.
41. We note that though she was absorbed in the Chennai DGF project in 2008 on her voluntary transfer, her continuance thereafter in Chennai from 18.10.2008 has been as a Member-Technical Staff. The order of appointment dated 17.08.2009 reads as follows:
Mrs.Anjali Himanshu Emp No:2257 Subject: Offer of appointment as Member Technical Staff Dear Mrs.Anjali Himanshu, 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 28 OA No.3998/2015 This refers to the Performance Appraisal Review of your work and performance in C-DAC as conducted by the Review Committee at C-DAC, Chennai on August 13,2009.
Keeping in view the recommendations of the Review Committee, your previous scholastic background experience and potential and in recognition of your contribution to C-DAC, I am pleased to inform you that C-DAC has decided to offer you a new contract of appointment in the same grade.
We are looking forward to your sustained efforts with renewed vigor and total commitment to the institution, so as to make our forthcoming activities successful.
On behalf of C-DAC, I, along with my senior colleagues, assure you of continued support and encouragement in the years ahead.
The terms of your new contract of appointment are given below:
1.Grade : MTSEI
2.Scale of pay :Rs.15600-39100-5400
3.Basic Pay :Rs.17550/-+Rs.5400 (Grade Pay) w.e.f.1.5.2009
4. Commencement of contract :October 18, 2008
5. Period of contract :December 31, 2012.
Other Terms and Conditions of contract are enclosed herewith in Annexure "A". We would appreciate receiving your formal acceptance of this offer by signing the photocopy of this offer and return the same to HRD within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt. Upon your acceptance of this offer your ongoing contract in the current grade shall stand concluded automatically with effect from the above mentioned date of commencement of this contract.
We are looking forward to your continued participation and make substantial contribution with deep involvement. This is being issued with the approval of the competent authority. With best wishes, Sincerely yours, Sd.-
Director.
42. There is no reference therein, or thereafter, to DGF project at all. The terms of appointment issued thereafter also make it clear, particularly clause 10.3 (Annexure A to communication dated 17.08.2009), extracted at paragraph 9(ix) that makes it clear that R1 is liable to be posted at the discretion of the competent authority to serve for any of C-DAC projects/C-DAC offices/ Units/ or any other Government Department, Statutory Body or Public Sector Undertaking, anywhere in India or abroad.
43. Therefore, the contention that she was mapped to a particular project is correct only as regards her initial posting. The scope of her engagement thereafter has been expanded as is evident from the record. The attempt to restrict her value to one project alone is thus misconceived and runs counter to the facts on record, and is rejected. This is the first point.
44. An ACR reflects the performance of a candidate over the trajectory of her career with an employer. The consistency displayed by an employee, the willingness to learn from suggestions made in the past, improvements or the lack thereof, are all parametres that are reflected in the ACR.
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'
Item No.13/C-II 29 OA No.3998/2015
45. It is possible that in a particular year, the employee would have had some challenges/limitations to face, either in career or personally, and these may reflect in the performance. It is expected that the superior officer would have taken note of these unique factors in that year in grading the candidate or at the least made a note of the same in the ACR.
46. In short, the ACRs tell a story. They capture the relationship between an employer and employee over the years. It is thus of vital importance in determining the shape and contours that such relationship would take, going forward, to take note of the ACR as well. (See the decisions of this Court in M.Dakshina Murthy v Union of India & Ors [W.P.No.1557 of 2011 dated 01.10.2012] and Union of India and Ors v M.Dakshinamurthy [W.A.No.130 of 2015 dated 16.12.2016].
47. We have perused the ACRs placed before us and note that the observations and comments made by the superiors are positive and indicate a good level of performance of R1. This is the second point.
48. On account of the two points indicated above, R1 is given liberty to make a representation before the authority if she so desires, seeking a position in the Appellant organisation. Such representation, if made, shall be decided by the authority within a period of four (4) weeks from receipt thereof, having regard to the observations made in this order, though no positive direction is issued by the Court in that regard. In doing so, the authority shall also take note of her service of nearly a decade and the performance appraisals that she has received during her tenure."
12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present Original Application is partly allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 30.01.2015 and 15.05.2015 placed at Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to treat the discontinuance of the applicant from service as unsustainable in law and restore continuity of his contractual engagement as provided in para 18.1.2 of Bye-Laws of CDAC with all consequential benefits;
(iii) The respondents are further directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for continuation/extension of contractual service under Clause 18.1.2 in para 18.1 with titled "Terms of Appointment", as mentioned in para 10.4 above for migration 2026.05.22 RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01 +05'30' Item No.13/C-II 30 OA No.3998/2015 from contractual position to regular position, strictly in accordance with law, applicable rules, and eligibility conditions, by ignoring the adverse findings recorded in the impugned orders, which have been set aside herein; and
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequential benefits, if any, arising out of such reconsideration shall also follow in accordance with law.
13. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.05.22
RAVI KANOJIA11:48:01
+05'30'