Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010016472026 2026:GAU-AS:3540- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1348/2026 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION, SANCHAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110003. 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AN AUTONOMOUS SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY OF MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NIELIT BHAWAN PLOT NO. 3 PSP POCKET SECTOR 8 DWARKA NEW DELHI-110077. 3: THE REGISTRAR NIELIT MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NIELIT BHAWAN PLOT NO. 3 PSP POCKET SECTOR 8 DWARKA NEW DELHI- 110077. 4: THE DIRECTOR NIELIT GUWAHATI CENTRE ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 5: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FINANCE) AND ADMN -IN- CHARGE NIELIT GUWAHATI CENTRE ASSA VERSUS MS. BANTI DAS AND ANR DAUGHTER OF MATHURA MOHAN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ARANYAK, WARD NO. 7, POST OFFICE- BARPETA ROAD, POLICE STATION- BARPETA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM -781315. 2:MS. TANUSHREE KALITA DAUGHTER OF DINABANDHU KALITA C/O BIREN KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ABHAYPUR POST OFFICE- GERUA DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM- 781102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA (C.G.C.), Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 09-03-2026 (AD Choudhury, J) 1. The present petition arises from an order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 28/2024. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the respondents were engaged pursuant Page No.# 3/6 to an advertisement dated 17/05/2015 issued by the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (for short, NIELIT), inviting applications for several technical and administrative positions across its centres in the north-eastern region and elsewhere. 3. The advertisement expressly stipulated that the engagement would be purely contractual for an initial period of 2 years or absorption. 4. The respondents participated in the selection process, comprising a written examination and an interview and were thereafter engaged on contract around the year 2015. 5. Their engagement was extended from time to time, depending on work requirements, and continued until 31.10.2020. 6. After the expiry of the said period, the respondents approached the Tribunal in earlier proceedings and in O.A. Nos. 2939/2021 and 2948/2021, which were transferred to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi. 7. The Principal Bench passed an order dated 15/09/2022, directing the appellants to continue the engagement of respondents at Jorhat or at other centres, subject to the availability of work and having regard to their qualifications and experience. At the same time, the Principal Bench made it clear that such continuation would not confer any right upon the respondents to claim permanent absorption or regularisation. 8. Subsequently, the respondents represented before the employer- appellants seeking a grant of annual increments for the period from 2020 to 2022. 9. The request was declined by the Competent Authority of the appellants, and the decision was communicated by letter dated 25.10.2023. The reasoning assigned was that contractual engagement of the respondents had come to an end on 31.10.2020, and their continuation thereafter was Page No.# 4/6 not by way of contractual extension but in compliance with the directions issued by the Principal Bench. It was, therefore, stated that the terms of the contract giving increments could not be invoked after the expiry of the contract. 10. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents instituted the present O.A. No. 28/ 2024 before the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, the Tribunal set aside the rejection communications dated 25.10.2023 and 12.01.2024 and directed the appellants to release the salary of the respondents with effect from November 2020 on the same terms and conditions as governed their engagement earlier, including the grant of annual increments upon completion of one year. 11. The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal, as well as before this court, is that once contractual engagement had come to an end on 31.10.2020, no benefit of increment and/ or other benefit under the contract can be granted inasmuch as the continuation of service of the respondents was under the orders of the court. 12. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Tribunal could not have directed the payment of increments by effectively reviving the contractual terms that had ceased to operate. It is asked that continuation of the respondents thereafter was only by virtue of judicial orders, and therefore, no financial benefits under the contract could be claimed. 13. We are unable to accept such contention. 14. It is not in dispute that the respondents had continued to discharge duties and their services had been utilised by the appellant even after the expiry of the initial contractual period. The continuation of their engagement, though pursuant to judicial directions, resulted in the respondents Page No.# 5/6 rendering uninterrupted service for the benefit of the appellants. In such circumstances, the denial of increments solely on the ground that the formal contractual period had expired would amount to permitting the employer to take advantage of the services rendered, while denying the attendant financial conditions under which such services were initially secured. 15. The appellants, in no unambiguous manner, submitted before the Principal Bench as well as before the Guwahati Bench that they require the services of these contractual employees and that their services shall be continued. 16. We are of the view that the tribunal has been conscious of the limits of its jurisdiction. The impugned order does not confirm any right of regularisation or permanent absorption under the respondents. The direction is confined to ensuring that for the period during which the respondents continued to render services and the appellants availed of such services, they are paid in accordance with the same terms that govern their engagement. 17. The direction is thus grounded in considerations of fairness, and it does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 18. The scope of interference by this court in such an appeal against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is limited to examining whether the order under challenge suffers from perversity, manifest illegality or a jurisdictional infirmity. No such ground has been demonstrated in the present case. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Member (A), Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, in Original Application No. 28/2024. 20. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Page No.# 6/6 21. No order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant