Page No.# 1/14 GAHC040020772025 2026:GAU-AP:939 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/595/2025 Takar Dupit and 2 Ors Son of Late Tayam Dupit, Village Dupit / Saring, PO and PS Taliha, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Bode Tamin Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Larbu Ngute Tamin Village Gyasing PO and PS Taliha Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Adam Nayam Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Tapak Nayam Pisa Village PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Food Corporation of India and 2 Ors represented by General Manager (FCI), Regional Office, Itanagar 791111 2:The Divisional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Food Corporation of India Divisional Office Pasighat 791102 Page No.# 2/14 3:The Manager (Depot) Age: 0 Occupation : Food Corporation of India Food Storage Depot Arunachal Pradesh upper Subansiri District Daporijo 79112 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Sr. Adv, Pondit Ronya,Khoda Apa,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : B K Singh, SC (FCI) Linked Case : WP(C)/596/2025 Ujjal Borgohain and Anr Age: 35 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Deven Borgohain Ragati No.2 Village Po and SP Narayanpur North Lakhimpur District Assam. 2: Aftab Hussain Age: 39 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Safiqur Rahman Choudhury Tarinipur Village PO and PS Katigora Cachar District Assam. VERSUS The Food Corporation of India and 2 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by General Manager (FCI) Regional Office Itanagar 791111 2:The Divisional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Food Corporation of India Page No.# 3/14 Divisional Office Pasighat 791102 3:The Manager (Depot) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Food Corporation of India Food Storage Depot Kharsang Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh 12010 ------------ Advocate for : T T Tara Sr. Adv Advocate for : B K Singh appearing for The Food Corporation of India and 2 Ors: Advocate , , appearing for 2, 3, respectively. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 4/14 JUDGMENT (ORAL) Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, for the respondents. 2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the Office Order No. FCI/FSD.KSG/OFFICE ORDER/2024, dated 21.06.2025, issued by the Manager (Depot), FSD, Kharsang, as well as the Office Order No. FCI/FSD.DRJ/OFFICE ORDER/2025, dated 23.09.2025, issued by the Manager (Depot), FCI/FSD, Daporijo, by which the services of the petitioners as Watchman on contractual basis have been discontinued and they have been directed to vacate the FCI quarters without further delay. 3. Having considered the similitude of the issues involved in both these writ petitions and the identical nature of the reliefs sought, same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 595/2025 were appointed as Watchmen on contractual basis vide appointment orders dated 18.05.2011, 27.04.2016 and 22.06.2017, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, pursuant to the requisitions made by the FCI Regional Office, Itanagar. The petitioners have accordingly rendered 14 (fourteen) years, 9 (nine) years and 8 (eight) years of service, respectively, on contractual basis as Watchmen. 5. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 596/2025 were similarly appointed as Watchmen on contractual basis pursuant to the requisition of the FCI Regional Office, Itanagar, vide appointment order dated 27.06.2011, issued by the Page No.# 5/14 Deputy Commissioner, Changlang District. They have accordingly rendered about 14 (fourteen) years of continuous service as contractual Watchmen. 6. While the petitioners were continuing in service, a decision was taken by the FCI to engage DGR-sponsored security agencies for providing security services at its establishments. Consequent thereto, DGR Guards joined at FCI/FSD, Daporijo, on 10.06.2025 and at FCI/FSD, Kharsang, on 21.06.2025. Following such engagement, the services of the petitioners came to be discontinued by the impugned Office Orders dated 23.09.2025 and 21.06.2025, respectively. Hence, these writ petitions. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that since they have rendered long and continuous service with satisfactory records, they acquired the legitimate expectation of continuation in service and could not have been discontinued without adherence to due process of law as neither any show-cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 8. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have rendered long, continuous and satisfactory service as contractual Watchmen for several years and in the absence of any adverse remarks, misconduct or disciplinary proceedings against them, had a legitimate expectation of continuation in service. The impugned orders have been passed ex parte without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing and are therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair administrative procedure. He submits that the petitioners were appointed through due administrative process pursuant to the requisitions of the FCI Regional Office, Itanagar, and their appointments were neither illegal nor contrary to any statutory rule or prescribed procedure. The abrupt Page No.# 6/14 discontinuation of their services, without following due process of law, is arbitrary and unreasonable and infringes the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders dated 21.06.2025 & 23.09.2025 may be set aside directing the respondent FCI to allow the petitioners to continue in the service. 9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, to project that government departments are expected to provide fair and stable employment and that continued engagement of workers on a temporary basis for an extended period, particularly where their services are integral to the functioning of the organisation, cannot be disregarded while considering their claim for continuity and security of service. 10. Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, has also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, to project that even employees initially engaged on a temporary or casual basis, upon being accorded a recognised and continuing position within the service structure and corresponding service benefits, cannot be treated merely as casual labourers and that the rights accruing to such employees cannot be rendered illusory on account of inaction on the part of the employer. 11. Mr. B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, appearing for the respondents, at the outset, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party. He submits that the petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, but has not been impleaded as a respondent. Page No.# 7/14 Therefore, in the absence of the appointing authority, the writ petitions suffer from non-joinder of a necessary party and are liable to be dismissed on that count alone. In support of his submission, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., reported in 1963 0 AIR(SC) 786. 12. Mr. B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, submits that the petitioners were appointed on purely contractual basis by the Deputy Commissioners of Upper Subansiri District and Changlang District and not by the FCI, pursuant to the arrangement made at a time when DGR-sponsored security agencies were not available in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. He submits that the terms of their appointment expressly provided that they would have no right to claim regularisation or absorption in the FCI and their services could be discontinued when no longer required. He submits that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2005 and the subsequent directions issued by the FCI Headquarters, the FCI was required to obtain security services through DGR-sponsored agencies. With the availability of such agencies in the State, the FCI accordingly transitioned to DGR-sponsored security services and after their deployment, returned the services of the petitioners to the concerned appointing authority for their possible utilization elsewhere. The impugned orders do not amount to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the petitioners, but merely record the discontinuation of their contractual services from the concerned FCI Depot consequent upon the engagement of DGR- sponsored security services. Therefore, he submits that no right of the petitioners has been infringed and the challenge to the impugned orders is devoid of merit. Page No.# 8/14 13. Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, while rejoining his submission as to the issue of maintainability, submits that no relief has been sought against the concerned Deputy Commissioners and therefore, they are not necessary parties to the present proceedings. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601, to project that the necessary parties to a proceeding are those against whom relief is sought and in whose absence no effective adjudication can be made. Applying the said principle to the present case, learned Senior Counsel submits that the relief sought in these writ petitions is directed against the respondent FCI in respect of the impugned orders issued by its authorities and no relief has been sought against the concerned Deputy Commissioners. Therefore, he submits that the Deputy Commissioners cannot be treated as necessary parties merely because they had issued the appointment orders of the petitioners. 14. Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The petitioners were appointed as Watchmen on contractual basis at FCI/FSD, Daporijo and FCI/FSD, Kharsang by the Deputy Commissioners of the respective districts, pursuant to the requisition dated 02.04.2011, issued by the Manager (Administration), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Itanagar, to the Deputy Commissioners of Upper Subansiri District and Changlang District. In the said requisition, it was specifically stipulated that the appointment orders should incorporate a condition that the appointees would have no right to claim regularization or absorption in the FCI in future and the FCI could terminate their services at any time if their services were no longer considered necessary. Page No.# 9/14 16. The appointments of the petitioners were accordingly made on the basis of the agreement entered into between the FCI and the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh, containing, inter alia, the following terms and conditions: 1. This appointment is purely on contract basis and appointee shall have no right to claim for regularization/absorption of his service in F.C.I. 2. The monthly fixed salary of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only shall be paid to appointee by F.C.I. on submission of monthly absentee report to in-charge, F.S.D Daporijo. 3. The appointment is subjected to the submission of documents pertaining to educational qualification, character certificates ST/SC certificate, specimen signature, permanent certificate and three copies of recent passport size photograph attested by any gazette officer. 4. The appointee shall have no right to any leave entitlement except in case of medical and overtime duly performed as compensation leave (C.C.S) only. 5. The appointee shall have no right to claim all entitlement as enjoyed by regular employee of E.C.I. 6. The Services of the appointee shall be under the disposal of depot-in- charge of F.C.I duties. 7. The other terms and conditions which are not mentioned here shall be in accordance with the M.O.U. signed between F.C.I and State Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 17. A perusal of the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioners clearly shows that the appointments were purely on contractual basis and the Page No.# 10/14 petitioner would not have any right to claim for regularization or absorption in the FCI. Therefore, by virtue of their contractual engagement, no right accrued to the petitioners to claim regularization, absorption or continuation in service as Watchmen. The Assistant General Manager, FCI, vide communication dated 14.02.2025 addressed to the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts, has intimated the decision to hand over the services of the security guards provided by the Deputy Commissioners for the FCI depots/offices. 18. The said communication reflects that the FCI Regional Office, Itanagar, had started functioning independently from the year 2008. Prior thereto, the PDS operations of the State were handled by FCI Regional Office, Guwahati, Assam and the various District Offices located therein. At the initial stage of establishing its offices and depots in Arunachal Pradesh, there was an acute shortage of official staff and security guards for carrying out the day-to-day operations of FCI. Therefore, the State Government was requested to depute its staff and deploy security personnel on a temporary basis. However, with the passage of time, the operations of the FCI in the State have stabilized, and the State Government staff so deputed returned to their parent departments. As on the relevant date, only the security guards provided through the respective Deputy Commissioner’s offices continued to be deployed with the FCI. 19. The said communication further reflects that the FCI, Arunachal Pradesh, is governed by the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2005, issued by the Government of India, as well as the various standing orders issued by the FCI Headquarters. As per the said Office Memorandum, Central Government Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises are required to obtain security cover from security agencies sponsored by the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR), an attached office of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Page No.# 11/14 Defence. Till recently, no DGR-sponsored security agency was available in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, the aforesaid requirement could not be implemented. However, with the availability of four DGR-sponsored agencies in the region, the FCI decided to transition to DGR-sponsored security services, inter alia, keeping in view the prevailing security requirements of its depots, including issues relating to encroachment at certain depots in the State. In such circumstances, the FCI decided to hand over the services of the security guards provided by the Deputy Commissioners, with an observation that their services could be reassigned to other departments, so as to avoid financial hardship to the individuals concerned. 20. The Additional Secretary-cum-Director (F&CS), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 04.03.2025 addressed to the General Manager (Region), FCI, Itanagar, had clarified that the Deputy Commissioners had merely recommended the candidates after verification of their character and antecedents and the Department of Food & Civil Supplies and the Deputy Commissioners had no role in the appointment of the security guards. At the same time, considering the dedicated and sincere service rendered by the petitioners for more than a decade in the FCI, a request was made to the FCI to consider their continuation/absorption on humanitarian grounds, particularly as many of them had crossed the age bar for recruitment in other agencies/departments while serving with the FCI. 21. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, vide communication dated 11.08.2025, had also clarified that the Deputy Commissioner had no role or authority in the appointment of contractual Watchmen for the FCI and had no responsibility in relation to their employment, payment of wages or supervision of their duties at the FCI godown. It was Page No.# 12/14 further stated that the contractual Watchmen working under FCI/FSD, Daporijo, were employees of the FCI, except that the formal appointment orders had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the requisition made by the FCI. 22. Thereafter, the Manager (Depot), FCI/FSD, issued the impugned Office Orders, whereby the services of the petitioners as contractual Watchmen were discontinued consequent upon the joining of DGR-sponsored security guards at FCI/FSD, Daporijo and Kharsang. 23. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis pursuant to the requisition made by the FCI as Watchmen in the respective FCI/FSD depots at Daporijo and Kharsang. They have rendered continuous service ranging from 8 (eight) years to 14 (fourteen) years. Consequent upon the decision of the FCI, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2005, issued by the Government of India, requiring Central Government Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises to obtain security cover from security agencies sponsored by the DGR, the services of the petitioners came to be discontinued following the joining of DGR-sponsored security guards at FCI/FSD, Daporijo and Kharsang. The appointment orders clearly stipulate that the appointments were contractual in nature and the appointees would have no right to claim regularization or absorption in the FCI. 24. Ordinarily, contractual services are regulated by the terms and conditions of the appointment. However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioners having been continued for a considerable period of time and there being no adverse material or blemish in their service records, this Court is of the view that the FCI/FSD ought to have issued notice to the petitioners before discontinuing their services, particularly having regard to the considerable length Page No.# 13/14 of their continuous service as Watchmen. At the same time, the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India requires Central Government Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises to obtain security cover from security agencies sponsored by the DGR. The FCI, being a Public Sector Undertaking, was therefore required to take steps for obtaining security services from DGR- sponsored agencies. In the aforesaid circumstances, although notice ought to have been issued to the petitioners before discontinuation of their services, the interest of justice would be served by directing the respondents to pay 3 (three) months’ salary to the petitioners in lieu of such notice, without interfering with the decision to discontinue their contractual engagement, the same being otherwise regulated by the express terms and conditions of their appointment. 25. Regard being had to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of non-joinder of the Deputy Commissioners, this Court is of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioners is essentially against the FCI and the impugned Office Orders issued by its authorities. Merely because the formal appointment orders were issued by the respective Deputy Commissioners pursuant to the requisition made by the FCI, the Deputy Commissioners cannot, in the facts of the present case, be held to be necessary parties in the absence of any relief being sought against them. Accordingly, the non-impleadment of the Deputy Commissioners cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petitions as not maintainable. 26. The authorities referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the parties have been perused. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal propositions as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the discontinuation of their contractual services without issuance of notice, whereas Page No.# 14/14 the contractual terms governing their engagement expressly contemplated that they would have no right to claim regularization or absorption in the FCI and their services could be discontinued when no longer required. Therefore, the authorities are not applicable in the present cases. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned Office Orders dated 21.06.2025 and 23.09.2025. Although notice ought to have been issued to the petitioners before discontinuation of their services, the terms and conditions of their appointment clearly establish that their engagement was purely contractual and they would not have any right to claim regularization, absorption or continuation in service. The discontinuation of their contractual engagement consequent upon the joining of DGR-sponsored security guards, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court. However, considering that the petitioners had rendered considerable years of service as Watchmen pursuant to their appointments, though on contractual basis, the respondents-FCI are directed to pay to each of the petitioners an amount equivalent to 3 (three) months’ salary in lieu of notice, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 28. Writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant