The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by former contractual employees engaged as Arogya Mitras under the Ayushman Bharat–Prime Minister Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), holding that they had no enforceable legal right to seek continuation or renewal of their contracts after policy changes introducing outsourcing through private agencies. The Court also vacated interim relief earlier granted.
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan delivered the judgment in a group of nine writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 6678 of 2023: Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and 36 others v. State of U.P. and Others, and connected matters.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners were initially engaged as Arogya Mitras between 2017 and 2018 on a contractual basis by district health societies. They were later deployed under the Central Government’s AB-PMJAY health scheme. Their contracts were subject to annual renewal, and they were paid honorarium from hospital funds.
On 22 August 2023, the Chief Executive Officer of the State Health Agency (SACHIS) issued a directive requiring that all Arogya Mitras (renamed PMAMs – Prime Minister Arogya Mitras) be engaged only through a designated Beneficiary Facilitation Agency (BFA), namely Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd., as per guidelines from the National Health Authority (NHA), Government of India.
The petitioners challenged this directive, seeking quashing of the 22 August 2023 order and continuation of their existing services.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners submitted that:
- They were working continuously on contract and were being paid honorarium.
- They had not been formally served with termination notices.
- The outsourcing model would unjustly replace them despite no illegality in their initial appointment.
They argued that their contractual services should not be interfered with, and claimed subsistence of their appointments.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Appearing for the State Health Agency, Senior Advocate Upendra Nath Mishra, assisted by Madhukar Ojha, submitted:
- The AB-PMJAY scheme had undergone structural change as per the Government of India’s policy.
- Engagement of PMAMs was now exclusively through BFA, which had been formally contracted in August 2023.
- Petitioners had misrepresented facts and withheld relevant documents, including absence of renewed contracts, to obtain interim orders from the Court.
- Petitioners had no constitutional or statutory right to claim continuance under an expired contract.
It was further submitted that honorarium to PMAMs is now payable only through the BFA, from deductions made against treatment claims, and not directly from hospital or project funds.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court noted that:
- Petitioners had failed to produce any renewed contractual orders to support the claim of subsisting service.
- Interim relief was granted earlier based on incorrect submissions that their contracts were active.
- The terms of the scheme had been lawfully amended and outsourcing had been introduced as policy by the competent authorities.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Yogesh Mahajan v. AIIMS [(2018) 3 SCC 218], GRIDCO Ltd. v. Sadananda Doloi [(2011) 15 SCC 16], and Pushpa Srivastava v. Institute of Management Development [(1992) 4 SCC 33] to reiterate:
“No contract employee has a right to have their contract necessarily renewed; rights are governed solely by the terms of the contract or the scheme.”
The Court also held that outsourcing policies fall outside the scope of judicial review, citing State of U.P. v. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College [(2021) 15 SCC 600].
It further emphasized that suppression of material facts and misrepresentation before the Court amounts to fraud and could independently justify dismissal of the petitions.
Decision:
The Court concluded that:
- The petitioners had no enforceable right to seek renewal or continuation.
- The petitions were not maintainable under law.
- The interim orders earlier granted were based on misrepresented facts and are liable to be vacated.
“These writ petitions seeking continuance or extension of contractual employment under a Government project, in violation of amended guidelines, are not sustainable in the eyes of law,” the Court held.
The writ petitions were dismissed and interim orders stood vacated. However, the Court clarified that honorarium already paid to the petitioners under earlier interim orders would not be recovered, as they had discharged duties during that period.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. and connected petitions
Case Numbers: WRIT-A No. 6678 of 2023 and 8 others
