Dismissed¶19

Vibha Khanna v. Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti and Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/9434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vibha Khanna v. Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti and Ors.; W.P.(C) 9434/2024 & CM APPL. 38738/2024; High Court of Delhi; Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan JJ.; decided 06.02.2026. Keywords: contractual appointment; Archive Assistant; non-renewal of contract beyond 31.03.2018; rejection of extension recommendations; efflux of time; review application R.A. No. 15/2024 dismissed; OA No. 1231/2018 dismissed; Central Administrative Tribunal; no right to continued employment; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The concerned authority did not accept the recommendations that had been made for extension of the Petitioner's service contract, and consequently her contract was not renewed beyond 31.03.2018. ¶17

Vibha Khanna Vs Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9434/2024 & CM APPL. 38738/2024

¶4

VIBHA KHANNA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Mamta Sharma & Mr. R. Gopalakannan, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAR BHARTI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vertika Sharma, Mr. Kunal Goswami & Ms. Khushboo, Advs.

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R % 06.02.2026

¶11

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.

¶12

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was dismissed while specifically noting that the Petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis and that she had not been replaced by another contractual employee.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.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶21

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶22

FEBRUARY 6, 2026 “SK”

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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

Vibha Khanna v. Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibha Khanna v. Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaslon Oversea Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax GST

Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Karamveer and Ors. Vs MCD and Ors.

Hemant Sharma Vs Rail Land Development Authority and Anr.

Rohit Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rita & Ors. Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Mukesh

Dr. Bipin Batra Vs National Board of Examinations and Anr.

M/S Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi

Dinesh Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

All India Mes Civilian Engg. a Vs UOI & Ors.

UOI & Ors. Vs M.P.Kushwaha