Tripura HC Dismisses Writ of Contractual PIO Seeking Re-engagement in IGDC CREFLAT Project
The High Court of Tripura held that a contractual Project Implementing Officer engaged through an outsourcing agency had no enforceable right to re-engagement or regularisation after her tenure ended.
The High Court of Tripura, sitting at Agartala, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Reema Saha, a 45-year-old woman who had worked as a Project Implementing Officer (PIO) in the Indo-German Development Cooperation (IGDC) CREFLAT Project. Her engagement, routed through the outsourcing agency Society for Entrepreneurship Development (SOFED), ended on 25 September 2025. She challenged both the curtailment of her tenure and a fresh recruitment notification issued by SOFED for the same post. Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting singly, found that her appointment was purely contractual, that no direct employer-employee relationship existed with the State or the project authority, and that the Supreme Court precedents she relied upon did not apply to her situation.
The Dispute Before the Court
Dr. Saha was first engaged as PIO for the IGDC CREFLAT Project by appointment letter dated 10 February 2021, for a period of eleven months, on a contract basis through SOFED. Her engagement was extended on multiple occasions. By a memorandum dated 4 December 2024, her deployment was continued, with her name appearing at serial number 29 in a list of outsourced contractual manpower extended from 7 October 2024 to 6 September 2025.
In May 2025, the project authority issued two office orders: one allocating her job to the respective department, and another assigning her the task of monitoring works across five sub-divisions. However, by an office order dated 28 August 2025, those duties were reassigned to Dr. Biplab Brahma, STO-MIS. Shortly after, SOFED extended her period of service only from 8 September 2025 to 25 September 2025 — a window of roughly seventeen days — without assigning any reason.
On 5 November 2025, SOFED issued Recruitment Notification No.05/2025-26 advertising the post of PIO afresh. This prompted Dr. Saha to file WP(C) No.660 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus directing her re-appointment as PIO for the remaining life of the CREFLAT project, renewal of her tenure from 25 September 2025 until regularisation or project completion (whichever was earlier), and quashing of the recruitment notification insofar as it related to the PIO post.
Petitioner's Case and Precedents Cited
Senior Counsel Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, assisted by Mr. Kawsik Nath, drew the court's attention to a performance certificate issued by the Director, NTFP Centre of Excellence, Tripura JICA Project, and a certificate of accreditation issued by the CEO & Project Director, IGDC CREFLAT Project. He argued that the Project Operation Manual itself, at Column 2.7.2, prescribed that continuity of project staff until completion of the project period was “a very crucial requirement for successful implementation of the project, especially for critical positions like Project Implementation Officer.”
The manual further provided that disengagement of contractual staff could only follow long unauthorised absence or serious misconduct, after following principles of natural justice. Dr. Saha's counsel contended that neither ground applied to her, and that her duties had simply been transferred to another officer without any disciplinary process.
Three Supreme Court decisions were placed before the court. In Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam, (2009) 6 SCC 611, the Apex Court had held that ad hoc appointments under a scheme are normally coterminous with the scheme and that employees appointed under such schemes need not be subjected to annual termination and re-engagement. In Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292, the Supreme Court directed that ad hoc employees be continued until regular incumbents were appointed and be paid the minimum of the pay scale. In U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 147, the Apex Court observed that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee, and that incumbents with experience are entitled to preference over fresh appointees.
Respondents' Counter and the State's Position
The respondents filed separate counter-affidavits. Respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 — the CEO & Project Director and associated officers of IGDC CREFLAT — stated that Dr. Saha had been engaged purely as outsourced contractual personnel through SOFED, and that no employer-employee relationship was ever created with the project authority or the State. They maintained that all extensions were SOFED's internal administrative decisions and did not confer any service rights.
On performance, the counter-affidavit was pointed: Dr. Saha had not submitted monthly work reports, had not regularly visited the field despite being assigned monitoring duties across multiple sub-divisions, had not produced activity monitoring reports, and had failed to demonstrate measurable progress against her terms of reference. The reassignment of her duties to Dr. Biplab Brahma was described as a bonafide administrative decision taken to prevent delay in an externally aided project with strict timelines.
Additional Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar Sarma submitted that the performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory, that allegations against her had been inquired into, and that the citations relied upon by the petitioner related to regular and ad hoc employees and were not applicable to an outsourced contractual worker. He urged dismissal of the petition.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Palit identified the core question as whether a contractual employee engaged through an outsourcing agency could claim re-engagement or regularisation by writ, and whether the court could direct the respondents to absorb her in the post she previously held.
The court drew on two further Supreme Court decisions. In Municipal Council, Nandyal v. K. Jayaram, SLP (Civil) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019, the Apex Court had held that where a worker is engaged not directly but through a third-party contractor, the obligation of the principal employer is only to pay the contractor, and any claim by such a worker lies against the contractor rather than the principal. The court had emphasised that the test is whether a direct relationship exists between the two contesting parties, or whether the relationship is mediated through a third party.
In Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 818, the Supreme Court reiterated that contractual employees have no automatic right to regularisation, absorption, permanency, or pay parity. They have only a right to participate and be considered under applicable statutory recruitment rules. The court in that case also held that a direct leap from a scheme post to a State cadre post, bypassing statutory rules, would create a new mode of recruitment not sanctioned by law and would be contrary to the binding precedent in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.
Applying these principles, Justice Palit held that Dr. Saha's engagement was purely contractual, routed through SOFED as an outsourcing agency, and that no direct employer-employee relationship existed with the State or the project authority. The court found that the petitioner had not placed any material before it to show that SOFED lacked the authority to discontinue her service. The counter-affidavit material indicated that her performance was unsatisfactory, even though the respondents had continued her engagement until 25 September 2025.
The three Supreme Court decisions cited by the petitioner — Mohd. Abdul Kadir, Hargurpratap Singh, and U.P. Junior High School Council — were distinguished. The court held that those cases concerned ad hoc or regular employees and could not be applied to an outsourced contractual worker engaged through a third-party agency. Since the petitioner had not shown any extant rule under which a direction for absorption could be issued, the court found no irregularity or illegality in the respondents' proceedings.
Outcome
Justice Biswajit Palit dismissed WP(C) No.660 of 2025, finding it bereft of merit. Any interim order passed earlier in the matter was vacated. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.