The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, has dismissed an Original Application filed by a senior instrumentation engineer challenging his termination and seeking regularization under the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial), and Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(Administrative), ruled that because the applicant was engaged through a private third-party outsourcing agency, there was no direct employer-employee relationship with the NHAI or the respondent ministry. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the application was “totally mis-conceived” and that outsourced employees are not amenable to its jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Sujit Kumar Soni (54), initially joined service as a Senior Instrumentation Engineer on April 13, 2003, following an engagement letter dated April 8, 2003, issued by a private sub-contractor, Devcon Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. He was deputed to work on the Construction of Naini Bridge Project Construction Site at Village-Abhay Chandpur, Mirzapur Road, Naini, Allahabad. His services were subsequently extended over the years.
After the nominated Contractor, COWI-DIPL Consortium, discontinued its services with the NHAI, the Regional Officer issued a final approval letter dated January 29, 2019, appointing Soni to the post of “Instrumentation Specialist Cum Site Engineer” with retrospective effect from April 17, 2018, “till finalization on new Contract.”
However, following the issuance of NHAI Policy Circular No. 1.3.3.30/2026 dated February 2, 2026, Soni’s services were orally terminated effective March 31, 2026. Soni subsequently filed Original Application No. 360 of 2026 before the CAT Allahabad Bench seeking:
- The quashing of the oral termination and Policy Circular No. 1.3.3.30/2026.
- An order restraining the respondents from replacing him with another contractual employee.
- Regularization of his services based on the Regional Office’s approval letter dated January 29, 2019.
Arguments of the Parties
The Applicant’s Submissions
Represented by Advocate Shri Vinod Kumar, the applicant contended that his oral termination was illegal, arbitrary, and directly linked to the newly issued Policy Circular. He argued that the continuous nature of his duties and the formal approval letter issued by the Regional Officer on January 29, 2019, created grounds for the regularisation of his services. Soni also relied on a pending Civil Writ Petition (Sachin Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors.) before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. (SLP (C) No. 11086 of 2024).
The Respondents’ Submissions
Defending the termination, the respondents (Union of India through the Chairman of NHAI, the Regional Officer of NHAI Varanasi, and the Project Director of NHAI Prayagraj), represented by Advocate Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, filed a counter-affidavit arguing that:
- The NHAI had not initiated any recruitment or engagement process for the post of “Instrumentation Specialist” at the site; rather, the role itself had been discontinued following a thorough assessment.
- From 2003 to 2018, the applicant was deployed by a third-party contractor/consultant, establishing an “employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the said contractor/consultant,” meaning the NHAI had no role in his hiring, service conditions, or salary.
- After that agency demobilized, the NHAI had a temporary and emergent need for supervision work, leading to a “fresh, short-term, and purely outsourcing arrangement… through a manpower supply agency.”
- Soni remained at all times an employee of the third-party agency, and his last extension under this outsourcing arrangement expired on March 31, 2026.
The NHAI Policy Circular of February 2, 2026
The controversy centered on NHAI Policy Circular No. 1.3.3.30/2026, which established new criteria and modalities for the engagement of “Site Engineers” through a centralized database and the “INFRACON Portal.”
Under Clause 2(viii) of the policy:
“The engagement of Site Engineers under this Policy is purely Contractual, Project Oriented and time-bound intended to meet Short-Term Project requirements only. Such engagement shall not create any claim, right or lien on Regular Appointment or Absorption irrespective of the duration of engagement or the nature of duties performed. The engagement of Site Engineers under this Policy shall remain distinct from Regular Employment in NHAI at all times.”
Additionally, Clause 2(vi) stipulated that existing Site Engineers could continue until their approved extension period but “should not be considered for further extension in case he/she has completed cumulative engagement of 5 years with NHAI on or before 31st March 2026, whichever is later.”
The Court’s Analysis and Cited Precedents
To determine the legal status of the applicant, the Tribunal examined Soni’s initial appointment letter dated April 8, 2003, which was issued and signed by Vikram Bhanushali, Director of the private agency. The Bench observed:
“From perusal of the appointment letter as well as the policy made by the NHAI, it is apparent that NHAI has no role in appointment and the applicant’s appointment was made through Private Agency…”
The Tribunal analyzed and applied several judicial precedents to the facts:
- The Municipal Council Nandyal Municipality vs. Kurnool District, A.P. (SLP (Civil) Nos. 17711-17713 of 2019, decided on 16.12.2025): The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the sympathetic regularization of long-serving contractual workers were explicitly restricted, with the Apex Court clarifying that “this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only… and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.”
- Sudhanshu Kumar Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (OA No. 2674/2019, CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, decided on 29.11.2022): The Tribunal cited this ruling, which in turn relied on Mamta vs. Govt. of NCT (OA No. 980/2014), to reiterate that outsourced workers are not within the CAT’s jurisdiction:
“In OA No. 980/2014… it was held by the Tribunal that outsourced employee is not amenable to jurisdiction of CAT. It was further observed that continuing the services of outsourced employees on benevolent grounds while renewing the contracts cannot by itself give rise to regularization in the employment of the principal employer.” Applying this, the Bench agreed that an employee of an outsourcing contractor has no direct employer-employee relationship with the respondent Ministry or Authority, meaning any cause of action lies strictly against the private contractor. - Sachin Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C)-252/2026, Delhi High Court): The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s reliance on this pending case, noting that the civil writ petition seeking the quashing of recruitment rules and regularization of various senior roles remains pending and is “not applicable in the present case.”
Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded:
“Under these circumstances, the applicant who was the employee of Naini Bridge Project Construction Site… and there is no employee-employer relationship with the respondent Ministry as well as NHAI. He was merely engaged on contract basis by the said private agency and his cause of action, if any, lies against the said private agency and is directed to seek remedy before the appropriate forum…”
The Decision
Finding no legal merit in the application, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case.
“In view of the above, this Tribunal has got no merit in the present original application and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs,” the Bench ruled, while further ordering that any interim protection stands discharged and all connected Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of.
