Court holds contractual appointments under National Rural Health Mission are coterminous with scheme duration; no mandamus for continuation until regular posts are created and filled
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Budhwar, dismissed writ petitions filed by Ankit Pathak and others seeking continuation of their contractual employment as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scheme after its discontinuation. The court held that contractual employees engaged under a government scheme do not acquire any vested right to continue their employment beyond the life of the scheme and cannot claim mandamus for reinstatement or regularization until substantive posts are created and filled by the State.
The petitioners, numbering over 300, were engaged on contract basis during 2012-2013 under the NRHM scheme, which was financially supported by the Central Government for a maximum period of three years with a declining grant pattern (85%, 75%, and 65% over the three years). The State Government was mandated to create regular posts and absorb these workers within three years. However, after the scheme's financial assistance ended on March 31, 2014, the State issued a circular prohibiting extension of contracts beyond that date.
The petitioners contended that their work was of a continuous nature, vital to public health, and they should be allowed to continue until regular appointments were made. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam, which held that ad hoc appointees under a continuing scheme should be retained as long as the scheme exists.
The State Government argued that the scheme had been discontinued and a policy decision was taken to make regular appointments under the Uttar Pradesh Health Worker and Supervisor Rules, 2018, and that contractual workers have no legal right to continue beyond the scheme period. The State also highlighted that the contractual appointments were terminable on notice and not against substantive posts.
Justice Budhwar's judgment extensively analyzed precedents including Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala, S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, Ganesh Digamber Jumbhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, and Prashant Shukla v. State of UP. The court reaffirmed that issuance of mandamus requires the petitioner to have a legal right and the respondent a corresponding legal duty, which was absent in the present case.
The court distinguished the Mohd. Abdul Kadir ruling on the ground that it applies only when the scheme is still operational, whereas here the scheme was discontinued and the State had taken a conscious administrative decision to make regular appointments. The court emphasized that continuation or discontinuation of government schemes is an administrative policy decision not ordinarily amenable to judicial interference unless arbitrariness or discrimination is shown, which was not the case.
Additionally, the court noted that despite an interim order in 2015 permitting continuation of services till regularization, the State had not complied, leading to contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order but urged the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that contractual health workers engaged under the NRHM scheme have no right to demand continuation of employment once the scheme ends, and they cannot compel the State to regularize their services absent any statutory or rule-based provision.
This judgment clarifies the legal position on contractual employment under government schemes, underscoring that such engagements are inherently temporary and contingent on the scheme's continuity and the State's policy decisions.
Summary:
The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that contractual employees under government schemes do not gain automatic rights to continued employment beyond the scheme's tenure. The State's discretion to discontinue schemes and transition to regular appointments cannot be interfered with by courts unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases involving contractual workers under various government initiatives across India.
Bottom Line:
Contractual employees under a discontinued government health scheme cannot claim a right to continue employment or seek mandamus for reinstatement until regular appointments are made.
Statutory provision(s):
- Uttar Pradesh Health Worker and Supervisor (Male and Female) Non Gazetted Service Rules, 2018
- National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme guidelines and related Government of India Office Memoranda (2011)
- Societies Registration Act, 1860 (relevant to State Health Societies)
Ankit Pathak v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974291
