AIIMS Contractual Employee Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Service Extension

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on January 31, 2018, ruled on the case of Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, AIIMS. The case revolved around the non-renewal of a contractual employee’s appointment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The petitioner, a Technical Assistant (ENT), sought an extension of his contractual appointment and regularization of his service. The Court upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, affirming that contractual employees have no inherent right to renewal or regularization.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Yogesh Mahajan, was initially appointed on a contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) at AIIMS in 1998. His contract was renewed multiple times, without artificial breaks, on a quarterly or six-monthly basis. However, his last extension ended on June 30, 2010, and AIIMS did not renew his contract further.

Aggrieved by this decision, Mahajan approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking reinstatement and extension of his contract. The Tribunal dismissed his petition, citing that he had no legal right to an extension or regularization. Subsequently, he challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, which also dismissed his petition. He then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Yogesh Mahajan)

Mahajan, appearing in person, contended that:

• His contract should have been renewed as he had received a favorable recommendation for continuation.
• AIIMS’s decision not to extend his contract was arbitrary and unjustified.
• In 2016, AIIMS appointed three persons to the post of Technical Assistant (ENT) through a walk-in interview, demonstrating that the institute required such employees.

Arguments by the Respondent (AIIMS)

The AIIMS administration countered that:

• Mahajan’s appointment was made without following any formal recruitment procedure or adherence to established rules.
• No contractual employee has a vested right to an extension or regularization.
• The decision to discontinue his contract was taken after due consideration, and he had no statutory or legal right to demand an extension.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reviewed the facts and legal principles governing contractual employment and made the following key observations:

• “It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time.”
• “The petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond June 30, 2010.”
• “The AIIMS administration duly considered the possibility of renewal but found it unnecessary to extend the petitioner’s contract.”
• “The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court correctly relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that irregular or temporary appointments do not confer any legal right to regularization.”
• “The petitioner’s claim that AIIMS hired new Technical Assistants in 2016 does not retrospectively validate his demand for renewal in 2010.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that Mahajan had no enforceable right to an extension or regularization. The Court noted that he could have participated in the 2016 walk-in interview for new Technical Assistant positions but chose not to do so.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the principle that contractual employment does not automatically entitle an employee to renewal or permanent status. It upholds the discretionary power of employers to decide on contract extensions based on institutional requirements and procedural compliance.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Yogesh Mahajan vs Prof. R.C. Deka, Dir Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-01-2018.pdf