Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010003412026 2026:GAU-AS:13220 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/345/2026 GADAPANI SARMA SON OF- LATE GANGADHAR SARMA RESIDENT OF- NEAR AMBIKAGIRI HIGH SCHOOL, MALIGAON P.O.- MALIGAON, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM PIN-781011 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AND STATE NODAL OFFICER CSS-ATMA KRISHI BHAWAN GS ROAD KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR SAMETI ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER AND PROJECT DIRECTOR CSSATMA Page No.# 2/9 KAMRUP ASSAM 5:ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT-785013 ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR N Z CHOUDHURY,S LASKAR,B. D. KAKATI,S. J. SAHARIAH,MR. D SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC. AGRICULTURE, :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Z. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears for respondent No. 5- Assam Agricultural University despite service of notice. Page No.# 3/9 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the action of the respondent authorities in not extending his contractual engagement as Block Technology Manager under the CSS-ATMA Scheme for the year 2025-26, despite his performance having been assessed as satisfactory, and in withholding his remuneration for the period during which he continued to discharge his duties. 3. The petitioner was initially engaged as Block Technology Manager for Udharbond Development Block, Cachar District, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of “Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms” (CSS-ATMA), vide engagement letter dated 06.07.2013, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Agriculture & SNO, CSS-ATMA/SPD, ARIAS Society. He joined the said post on 11.07.2013. His engagement was initially for a period of one year, extendable from time to time subject to satisfactory performance. Subsequently, he was transferred from Udharbond Development Block, Cachar, to Rampur Development Block, Kamrup, in the year 2018. 4. The petitioner’s contractual engagement was extended from time to time. By order dated 17.10.2022, the service of the contractual functionaries, including the petitioner, was extended up to 31.03.2023 or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. The performance report accompanying the said order reflected the petitioner’s performance as “Satisfactory”. Thereafter, his engagement was further extended up to 31.03.2024 and subsequently up to 31.03.2025. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that his performance continued to be satisfactory and there was no adverse remark against him. The District Agriculture Officer and Project Director, CSS-ATMA, Kamrup, vide communication dated 07.04.2025, forwarded the performance report of the contractual functionaries for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 for consideration of Page No.# 4/9 extension up to 31.03.2026. The petitioner figured at Sl. No. 9 therein and his performance was assessed as “Satisfactory”. However, when the respondent authorities issued the order dated 07.05.2025 extending the engagement of other contractual functionaries up to 31.03.2026, the petitioner’s name did not find place therein. The petitioner contends that, although no extension order was issued in his favour, he was asked to continue discharging his duties and accordingly, he continued to work up to 06.08.2025. However, his remuneration remained unpaid from April 2025 onwards. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.09.2025 before the Director of Agriculture, Assam, seeking extension of his engagement and release of his outstanding remuneration. However, the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the contractual engagement of the petitioner up to 31.03.2026, to release his outstanding remuneration, including for the period from 01.04.2025 to 06.08.2025, and not to terminate his service. The petitioner also sought a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the aforesaid advertisement insofar as it relates to the post of Block Technology Manager. 7. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been continuously serving as Block Technology Manager since 2013 and his performance throughout has remained satisfactory. He submits that despite the petitioner’s satisfactory performance being specifically recorded in the performance report forwarded for consideration of extension up to 31.03.2026, his name was omitted from the extension order dated 07.05.2025 without assigning any reason. The petitioner’s earlier extension order dated 17.10.2022 had specifically contemplated continuation up to 31.03.2023 or till Page No.# 5/9 attaining the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier, and therefore, the petitioner’s age could not have been made a ground for denying his extension without any reasoned decision. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner, being an existing and experienced contractual functionary with a satisfactory service record, was entitled to due consideration in terms of the Operational Guidelines of ATMA Scheme, 2025. Clause 3.4.5(ii) of the said Guidelines contemplates preference to existing and experienced contractual/outsourced manpower while renewing contracts and provides that their services ought not to be terminated without assigning any reason. He submits that despite non-issuance of a formal extension order, the petitioner was allowed to continue working and accordingly discharged his duties up to 06.08.2025, but his remuneration for the period from 01.04.2025 to 06.08.2025 has not been released. He further submits that the subsequent advertisement dated 10.12.2025 for appointment to the post of Block Technology Manager would further prejudice the petitioner unless appropriate protection is granted by this Court. 9. Ms. G. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, submits that the engagement of the petitioner under the ATMA Scheme was purely contractual, temporary and scheme-based and his continuation beyond the period of contractual engagement was not automatic. She submits that extension of such engagement is considered on a year-to-year basis, subject to performance appraisal as well as the prevailing Government policy and administrative requirements. Although the petitioner’s performance was assessed as satisfactory, the Government of India, through the Joint Director (Extension Reforms), Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, vide communication dated 19.09.2025, clarified that the upper age/exit age of Page No.# 6/9 contractual employees under ATMA could be fixed by the respective State Government, subject to the same not exceeding 60 years. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Assam prescribed 60 years as the exit age for contractual employees under ATMA vide notification dated 09.01.2026. Since the petitioner had already crossed 60 years of age, his engagement was not extended beyond 31.03.2025. Therefore, she submits that the non-extension of the petitioner’s engagement was pursuant to the prevailing policy decision and not on account of any adverse assessment of his performance and as such, the petitioner has no enforceable right to seek further extension of his contractual engagement. 10. While rejoining his submission, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s performance was admittedly satisfactory and therefore, non-extension of his engagement solely on the ground of age is arbitrary. He reiterates that the earlier order dated 17.10.2022 had extended the petitioner’s engagement up to 31.03.2023 or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier, and the said aspect has not been satisfactorily explained by the respondents. He further submits that the ATMA Scheme guidelines do not prescribe any mandatory upper age limit and the subsequent clarification dated 19.09.2025, issued by the Joint Director (Extension Reforms), Government of India, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, itself states that the State Government may decide the exit age having regard to the norms applicable to similarly placed contractual manpower. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the petitioner’s long experience and satisfactory performance instead of mechanically discontinuing his engagement on attaining 60 years of age. He also reiterates that the petitioner was allowed to continue discharging his duties up to 06.08.2025 despite his last formal extension being up to 31.03.2025, but his remuneration for the period from 01.04.2025 to Page No.# 7/9 06.08.2025 has not been paid. More so, the respondent authorities have not assigned any specific reason for the petitioner’s discontinuation, nor have they disputed his satisfactory performance. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and contrary to the applicable ATMA Guidelines. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis under the CSS-ATMA Scheme and his engagement was extended from time to time. It is also not in dispute that his performance was assessed as “Satisfactory”. However, such satisfactory performance cannot confer upon the petitioner an indefeasible or enforceable right to seek renewal of a contractual engagement beyond the period for which the contract was extended. The extension or renewal of a contractual engagement is dependent upon the terms of the engagement, the continuance of the scheme, administrative requirements and the policy decision of the competent authority. 13. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the order dated 17.10.2022, whereby the engagement of the contractual functionaries was extended up to 31.03.2023 or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier, also does not, in my considered view, create a vested right in favour of the petitioner to continue in engagement beyond the subsequent periods for which his contract was extended. The said order pertained to a particular period of extension and cannot be construed as conferring a permanent right of continuation up to the age of 65 years. Likewise, the provision contained in Clause 3.4.5(ii) of the Operational Guidelines of ATMA Scheme, 2025, relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be construed as mandating renewal of every existing contractual engagement irrespective of the policy and administrative considerations Page No.# 8/9 governing such engagement. 14. In the present case, the petitioner’s last formal extension was only up to 31.03.2025. The mere fact that his name was included in the performance report forwarded for consideration of extension up to 31.03.2026, or that his performance was assessed as satisfactory, does not by itself amount to an order extending his contractual engagement. In the absence of any order extending the petitioner’s engagement, this Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to renew such contractual engagement. The subsequent policy decision prescribing an exit age, relied upon by the respondents, may have a bearing upon future contractual engagements; however, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the question of its retrospective applicability, since the petitioner has otherwise failed to establish any enforceable right to renewal of his contractual engagement. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner for extension of his contractual engagement and for protection against the subsequent recruitment process cannot be granted. 15. However, a separate issue arises with regard to the petitioner’s claim that, despite expiry of his formal contractual engagement on 31.03.2025, he was permitted to continue discharging his duties up to 06.08.2025. The said aspect is essentially a matter of verification from the records of the concerned authorities. If, upon such verification, it is found that the petitioner had in fact been allowed by the competent authority, or with the knowledge and authorization of the concerned authorities, to discharge his duties during the period from 01.04.2025 to 06.08.2025, the petitioner would be entitled to remuneration for the period for which he actually worked, in accordance with the applicable terms and rates. Page No.# 9/9 16. Accordingly, while declining the prayer for extension of the petitioner’s contractual engagement, the respondent authorities are directed to verify from the relevant official records whether the petitioner had actually been allowed to discharge his duties during the period from 01.04.2025 to 06.08.2025. If, upon such verification, it is found that the petitioner had actually discharged his duties during the said period with the knowledge and authorization of the respondent authorities, the admissible remuneration for the period actually worked shall be released to him within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Subject to the aforesaid limited direction regarding verification and payment of remuneration, if found due, the writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant