BASANT GUPTA vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE on 19 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The applicants were appointed by the respondent No.2 on a fixed-term contractual basis for an initial period of two years as Business Development Executive, and their respective contractual engagements were renewed from time to time. The latest renewal was made vide order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-7) for a further period of one year, from 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2026.

2. The respondent No.2 informed the applicants vide communication dated 27.04.2026 that the Woman’s Health Care Division (WHD) of respondent No.2 had entered into a strategic business alliance with M/s Themas Medicare Limited for the sale, marketing and distribution of its product portfolio, while the ownership of the brand would remain with the respondent No.2. The said alliance would be effective from 14.05.2026, and HLL Lifecare Limited, i.e. respondent No.2 will be ceasing own marketing of its WHD products by the end of business hours on 13.05.2026. Thereafter, termination letter dated 28.04.2026 was issued. Aggrieved with the same, the applicant filed the present OA.

3. The OA was listed for hearing on 22.05.2026. Learned counsel for the applicants placed before us the interim order dated

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

3 OA No.547/2026

20.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court, while issuing notice, had directed that “till the next date of hearing, the services of the petitioners shall not be disengaged by the respondents”. In view thereof, this Bench of the Tribunal, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed that the services of the present applicants shall also not be discontinued till the next date of hearing.

4. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 21.08.2026, the arguing counsel for the applicants did not appear, while on the other hand, Shri Nikhilesh Krishnan, learned counsel for HLL Lifecare Limited, i.e., the respondent No.2 put in an appearance and apprised the Court that the respondent No.2 was, in fact, the main contesting parity. We adjourned the matter to 31.08.2026 and it was made clear that in case the applicants’ side was not represented on the next date of hearing, IR shall stand vacated.

5. On 31.08.2026, again the learned arguing counsel for the applicants had not put in an appearance and, instead, proxy counsel had appeared. Respondent No.2, the main contesting party, had filed MA No.342/2026 for vacation of the interim relief, and Shri Nikhilesh Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had vehemently argued as under : “..the applicant very well knew that respondent No.2 was indeed the contesting party, yet had chosen not to serve the advance copy and, at their back, had sought interim relief by citing an interim order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Since the respondent No.1, though present, was not aware of the facts, as they are not the actual contesting party, they could not apprise this Tribunal of the facts of this case as well as the facts of CWP No.10448/2026 cited by the applicant to get the interim relief”

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

4 OA No.547/2026

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 had apprised us that the petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.10448/2026, the interim order dated 20.05.2026 of which was cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, was, in fact, in a case where the petitioners therein were still in service and had not been disengaged, whereas, in the present case, the applicants had already been disengaged. The applicants, knowing very well that the actual contesting party was HLL Lifecare Limited, did not choose to serve an advance copy. As such, respondent No.2 could not be represented to apprise this Court of these facts.

7. This Tribunal allowed MA No.342/2026 filed by the respondent No.2 and vacated the interim relief granted vide order dated 22.05.2026. Thereafter, the applicant filed MA No.389/2026 for the recall of the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2026. For the reasons stated therein, the MA No.342/2026 is allowed, and the order dated 31.08.2026 is hereby recalled. Thereupon, the impugned OA has been heard on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the controversy involved in the present OA has already been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench (Allahabad Bench) of this Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.09.2026 passed in OA No.665/2026, and the respondents have annexed the same with their reply as Annexure R- 2/18. We have gone through the same. The facts as well as the controversy involved therein is the same as before us in the present OA. Some relevant extract of the above-cited judgment of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal are reproduced below :

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

5 OA No.547/2026

“2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed by respondent No.2, HLL Lifecare Limited, as Business Development Executive-III on fixed-term contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 30.06.2012 and, thereafter, was appointed/promoted as Business Development Executive-IV vide appointment letter dated 30.10.2021. The applicant continued to discharge his duties at Aligarh and his contractual engagement was renewed from time to time. The last renewal letter dated 11.03.2026 extended his contractual engagement from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027. However, vide the impugned letter dated 28.04.2026, respondent No.2 discontinued the applicant’s engagement with effect from 14.05.2026, stating that the BDEIV functions of the Women Healthcare Division of the Company were being discontinued. Aggrieved by the said discontinuation of his long-standing engagement, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned termination letter and a direction to the respondents to continue/regularize his services with consequential benefits.

…….

11. Thereafter, vide the impugned letter dated 28.04.2026, the applicant’s contractual engagement was discontinued with effect from 14.05.2026 on account of discontinuance of the concerned functions of the Women Healthcare Division. It is further borne out from the material placed on record that, subsequent to such discontinuation, the applicant was offered employment by M/s. Themis Medicare Limited vide offer dated 19.05.2026. Though the applicant submits that he did not accept or join the said employment, the fact remains that such offer was made pursuant to the aforesaid business arrangement. These material circumstances, including the letter dated 27.04.2026 informing the applicant about the strategic business alliance and inviting him to the joint meeting, as well as the subsequent offer of employment dated 19.05.2026, were not brought to the notice of this Tribunal when the interim order dated 10.06.2026 was passed.

12. So far as the interim protection granted vide order dated 10.06.2026 is concerned, we find substance in the contention of the respondents that such protection could not be continued once the applicant’s contractual engagement had already come to an end with effect from 13/14.05.2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, has held that an interim order staying termination, thereby permitting an employee to continue in service during the pendency of proceedings, may result in an usurpation of public office if the proceedings are ultimately dismissed. Likewise, in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated an interim order which, in substance, grants the final relief at the interlocutory stage. The same principle has

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

6 OA No.547/2026

also been relied upon by the respondents from Air India Ltd. v. Aditya Beri & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3014.

13. In the present case, the applicant’s engagement had already been discontinued with effect from 13/14.05.2026 and the Original Application was instituted thereafter. The interim order dated 10.06.2026, therefore, had the effect of restoring the applicant to a contractual engagement which had already come to an end, even before the legality of the impugned termination was finally adjudicated. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, continuation of such interim protection would, in substance, amount to granting at the interlocutory stage the very relief which the applicant seeks in the Original Application. We, therefore, find no justification for continuation of the interim protection granted vide order dated 10.06.2026, which is liable to be recalled and vacated.

14. As regards the challenge to the impugned termination letter dated 28.04.2026, having regard to the nature of the applicant’s engagement, the terms governing his contractual appointment, and the explanation furnished by the respondents regarding discontinuance of the concerned functions pursuant to the strategic business arrangement, we do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned action in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant’s claim for continuation or regularisation cannot be founded merely upon the length of his contractual service or successive renewals, particularly when the engagement itself remained contractual in nature. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the Original Application.”

9. The applicants were engaged purely on a contractual basis, as per the terms and conditions of their contractual appointments by HLL Lifecare Limited, and now, with the objective of reorganizing its business, HLL Lifecare Limited decided to close its WHD (Women’s Health Care Division) and entered into a strategic business alliance with M/s Themis Medicare Limited for the purpose of sale, marketing and distribution of its product portfolio. M/s Themis Medicare Limited issued offer of appointment letters dated 11.05.2026 to the present applicants, but they did not join and instead, on 19.05.2026, attended the meeting scheduled by M/s

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

7 OA No.547/2026

Themis Medicare Limited, where they were offered jobs at higher designations vide offers of employment dated 19.05.2026.

10. In view of the above and in light of the aforesaid cited detailed judgment passed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, wherein, the claim of similarly situated applicant was dismissed, we dismiss the present OA, finding no merit in the claim for continuation or regularization of the already discontinued contractual services of the present applicants. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.

(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J)

kmg*

KHUSHBOO