Vibha Khanna v. Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti And ORS.

$~15 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9434/2024 & CM APPL. 38738/2024 VIBHA KHANNA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Mamta Sharma & Mr. R.

Gopalakannan, Advs.

versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAR BHARTI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Vertika Sharma, Mr. Kunal Goswami & Ms. Khushboo, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026 1.

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the Orders dated 06.05.2024 in R.A. No. 15/2024 in OA No. 1231/2018 and Order dated 06.12.2023 in O.A. No.1231/2018, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 2.

Admittedly, the Petitioner was employed as an Archive Assistant on contractual basis at a fixed salary of ₹10,000/- per month. Her contract was not renewed beyond 31.03.2018. 3.

She filed O.A. No. 1231/2018 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed while specifically noting that the Petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis and that she had not been replaced by another contractual employee. It was noted that the service of the Petitioner was never terminated and that her employment came to an end with an efflux of time. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2026 at 13:05:39

4.

Review application being R.A. No. 15/2024 filed in OA No. 1231/2018 by the Petitioner was also dismissed. 5.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that at one stage after appraising the performance of the Petitioner, recommendations were made for extension of her service contract. 6.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

7.

It is pertinent to note that the concerned authority did not accept the aforesaid recommendations made for the extension of the contract of the Petitioner. As noted above, the Petitioner's contract was not renewed beyond 31.03.2018.

8.

Moreover, nearly 08 years have passed since the termination of the Petitioner's service contract. The Petitioner cannot claim any right to continue with the employment, particularly when the Respondent does not require her services.

9.

The present Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 6, 2026 "SK"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/02/2026 at 13:05:39