W.P.(C)/10357/2026 of SANJAYA KATIHA Vs TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD. & ORS. on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

%

22.09.2026

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails a communication dated 09.04.2026, by which the respondent – Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. [“TRIFED”] terminated his contractual engagement as a consultant.

2. I have heard Mr. Sanjaya Katiha, the petitioner in person, and Mr. Gautam Talukdar, learned counsel for TRIFED.

3. The petitioner has handed over a copy of the rejoinder affidavit, alongwith annexures thereto, which has been taken on record.

4. The petitioner was engaged as a consultant in the Minor Forest Produce Division of TRIFED on 02.01.2023. His initial appointment, by way of a Letter of Engagement dated 08.02.2023, was for a period of one year. It was extended on four occasions, lastly by an Extension Order dated 24.11.2025, until 09.09.2026. However, his engagement was terminated on 09.04.2026, and he received an e-mail on that date from respondent No. 4 informing him that his performance as a consultant has been reviewed by the Competent Authority, and based on the review, it was decided to discontinue his contractual engagement with immediate effect.

5. By an order dated 27.07.2026 in this petition, it was recorded that the petitioner had limited his relief to TRIFED permitting him to either serve the contractual notice period of one month, or alternatively, pay him remuneration in lieu thereof. Notice was issued to TRIFED for this limited purpose.

6. The parties have joined issue on the merits of the matter, and the petitioner’s entitlement to one month’s pay. It is the contention of Mr. Talukdar that the contractual engagement specifically contemplated termination without notice and without assigning any reason.

7. However, it is not necessary to adjudicate the matter on merits, as in the course of hearing, Mr. Talukdar has taken instructions and accepts a resolution, which is also agreeable to Mr. Katiha. The resolution is on the following terms:

a. During the pendency of the petition, TRIFED has issued a communication bearing No. TFD/HO/Legal/20011/18/2026- Legal/34385 dated 14.09.2026, in which it is stated that the petitioner’s termination was under Clause 4(d) of the Contract dated 08.02.2023, which provided for termination without assigning any reason and without notice. The same position has been taken in a communication by respondent No. 4 dated 22.06.2026. It is, therefore, clarified by TRIFED that the termination of the petitioner’s engagement was not on account of any adverse performance review [in terms of Clause 4(b) of the Contract] but under Clause 4(d), which does not require any reason to be given.

b. TRIFED has taken a decision to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as full and final settlement of all his claims arising out of the engagement dated 08.02.2023, which was terminated by the impugned communication dated 09.04.2026. The amount will be paid within four weeks from today.

c. This decision has been taken in the peculiar facts of this case, and is not intended to affect the legal rights and liabilities of TRIFED in any other case.

8. Mr. Talukdar accepts the aforesaid resolution in full and final settlement as noted above.

9. In view of the above consensus between the parties, the writ petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of, binding the parties to the terms recorded above. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 SS/SM/