While dismissing the Petitions of the contractual employees employed under the Ayushman Bharat-National Health Protection Mission, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the contractual employees do not have a right to have their contract necessarily renewed.

The High Court was considering the petitions seeking the continuance of the contractual employment of the petitioners.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan said, “In view of what has been considered above, when the contractual employees have got no right to get their contract necessarily renewed as such contracts have not been renewed, therefore, the writ court cannot issue direction to renew their contract. This is also settled law that the policy of outsourcing is outside the judicial review inasmuch as the Apex Court in re; State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College and Others, (2021)...”

Advocate Vikas Yadav represented the Petitioner while C.S.C. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Government of India introduced a Health Mission for providing free health care facilities up to Rs 5 lakh per family in the entire country called Ayushman Bharat-National Health Protection Mission (AB-NHPM) on July 23, 2018. The initial unamended project i.e. ABNHPM conceptualized the engagement of support workers called "Ayushman Mitra" at each public hospital/ Empaneled Health Care Provider/EHCP for facilitation of the patients/beneficiaries, claim submissions and their pre-authorizations under the scheme. The State Health Agency (SACHIS) had to ensure the deployment of Ayushman Mitras and their payment through third-party agencies.

Thereafter, the petitioners were engaged on a contract basis for a fixed period. In the year 2019-21, the Ayushman Mitras engaged under the then existing/unamended Ayushman Bharat-Prime Minister Jan Arogya Yojna (AB-PMJAY) continued to work as contract employees under the Central project. In 2023, the Nodal Agency ensured the appointment of Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. as Beneficiary Facilitation Agency (BFA) for the State of U.P. for providing PMAMs (Pradhan Mantri Arogya Mitra) and their deployment in all public hospitals under PMJAY. Several writ petitions were filed by the existing PMAMs for challenging the validity of the order passed by CEO, SACHIS, with a prayer that they may be allowed to continue and may not be replaced by the new PMAMs engaged by the BFA and they may be continued under the unamended/non-existing project called National Health Mission.

Reasoning

Referring to various judgments of the Apex Court including Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (2018) GRIDCO Ltd. and Another v. Sadananda Doloi and Others, (2011), the Bench reiterated that contractual employees do not have a right to get their contract necessarily renewed and their rights are governed by the terms of the project/contract only.

It was the case of the respondent that the writ petitioners, by resorting to misrepresentation of facts i.e. stating incorrect facts on affidavit regarding alleged subsistence and continued renewal of their contractual employment under the Central project (PMJAY), till the date of filing of their writ petition, obtained a favorable interim order. On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the petitioners did not disclose the complete and correct facts and gave wrong facts to obtain the interim order.

“It has been consistent view of the Apex Court that nondisclosure of material facts and non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain undue advantage and favorable orders from the Court amounts to deception and playing fraud on the Court and such orders would be nullity in the eyes of law”, it said while also adding, “It has been consistent view of the Apex Court that nondisclosure of material facts and non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain undue advantage and favourable orders from the Court amounts to deception and playing fraud on the Court and such orders would be nullity in the eyes of law.”

The Bench thus held that the writ petitions seeking continuance of contractual employment of the petitioners, granting extension/ renewal of contractual engagement under a Government project, in violation of provisions of the amended project, is not sustainable. Dismissing the Petitions, the Bench clarified, “It is made clear that whatever honorarium has been paid to the petitioners of the bunch of writ petitions would not be recovered from them for the reason that pursuant to the interim orders, they have discharged their duties and received honorarium.”

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya And 36 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 10 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:37471)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Vikas Yadav, Shivam Srivastava, Utkarsh Misra

Respondent: C.S.C., Advocates Madhukar Ojha, Nishant Shukla, Satya Prakash, Shikhar Srivastava

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.