Court rules that contractual appointments under Modified Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022 allow termination with one month's notice; withdrawal of notice was temporary and its revival valid
In a significant ruling delivered on September 29, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Anil Kumar and others challenging the premature termination of their contractual appointments as Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel and Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsels by the State of Haryana.
The petitioners' contracts had been extended up to March 31, 2027, under the Modified Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022. However, following a directive by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) dated August 4, 2026, which stated that contracts for Legal Aid Defense Counsel in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh shall not be renewed from September 2026 onwards, notices for termination were issued to the petitioners effective September 30, 2026.
The petitioners contended that their contractual tenure could not be curtailed mid-way since their contracts were valid until March 2027 and that the termination notices issued on August 27, 2026, were withdrawn on September 19, 2026, and therefore, fresh notices should have been served. They argued that the termination was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court, presided over by Justice Nidhi Gupta, examined the terms of the contractual appointments, particularly Clause (f) which allowed termination by either party with one month's advance notice or payment of retainership fee in lieu. The Court found that the one-month advance notice was duly served on August 27, 2026, in compliance with the contract terms. The subsequent communication on September 19, 2026, merely temporarily withdrew the notice "for the time being" until further orders, which meant that the original termination notice was effectively deferred but not nullified.
Upon receipt of a further communication dated September 24, 2026, the earlier notice was revived, and no fresh notice was required. The Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to continue their service until the originally extended tenure, as the appointments were purely contractual and terminable according to the terms stipulated.
Additionally, the petitioners had themselves admitted that Clause (f) permitted termination before March 31, 2027, and their grievance was only regarding the manner of exercise of this clause. The Court concluded that since the respondents had complied with the contractual termination procedure, the petitioners' challenge was without merit.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the State's right to terminate contractual engagements in accordance with the stipulated terms and clarifying that temporary withdrawal of termination notices does not require fresh notices upon revival.
This judgment reiterates the principle that contractual appointees under the legal aid scheme do not acquire any right to continuation beyond the terms of their contract and that due process in termination, as prescribed in the contract, must be followed.
Bottom Line:
Contractual Legal Aid Defense Counsel appointed under the Modified Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022 have no vested right to continue till the extended tenure where the contract itself permits termination by one month's notice or retainership fee in lieu thereof; a notice once temporarily withdrawn "for the time being" can validly be revived and no fresh notice is required.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 14, 16, 226, 227 of the Constitution of India; Modified Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022
Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993231
