In a significant ruling affecting the service structure of a public sector power company, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has upheld the decision of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVNL) to regularise its Fixed Tenure Appointees (FTAs) in the executive cadre.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma dismissed a writ petition filed by supervisors who had challenged the company’s policy allowing FTAs to be absorbed on a permanent basis.
The judgment was delivered on January 9, 2026.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The petitioners, led by Yug Raj Thakur, are serving as Supervisors (S1 and S2 levels) in SJVNL. They were appointed through a regular recruitment process and claimed they were eligible for promotion to the Executive (E2) level in due course.
Their grievance arose after SJVNL issued two Corporate HR Circulars - one in August 2023 and another in May 2024 - introducing and later modifying a policy to regularise Fixed Tenure Appointees. These FTAs had originally been appointed on contract for project-specific needs.
The supervisors argued that:
- FTAs were engaged only for a fixed period.
- The scheme clearly stated that FTAs had “no vested right” to claim regularisation.
- Allowing them to be absorbed at the Executive level would unfairly place them above regularly appointed supervisors.
They sought quashing of the circulars and all consequential actions.
What the FTA Scheme Provided
The Scheme for Engagement on Fixed Tenure Basis was framed to meet urgent manpower needs in projects. It clearly stated:
- FTAs would be appointed for three years, extendable by two more years.
- Their services were temporary.
- They would have no automatic right to permanent absorption.
However, Clause 16 of the scheme empowered the CMD to modify or amend the scheme in the company’s interest.
Later, the Board approved a policy to regularise eligible FTAs after completion of service, citing the need to retain trained and experienced manpower.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Petitioners’ Key Arguments
Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that:
- Regularisation defeated the very purpose of fixed tenure appointments.
- The company could not indirectly convert temporary posts into permanent ones without amending the scheme itself.
- Many eligible candidates - including the petitioners - did not apply for FTA posts because they were temporary.
- The move violated equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
They relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasising that temporary employees cannot automatically claim permanent status.
Respondents’ Stand
SJVNL and the private respondents defended the policy, arguing that:
- FTAs were selected through a rigorous process similar to regular recruitment.
- The employer has the authority to frame policies based on organisational needs.
- Clause 16 empowered modification of the scheme.
- Promotional chances of petitioners were not immediately affected.
Importantly, during the pendency of the case, SJVNL advertised regular Executive (E2) posts in 2025. The petitioners applied but did not qualify.
Court’s Observations
The Bench described the petition as a “personal grievance” rather than a challenge rooted in larger public interest.
“The grievance of the petitioners is personal in nature,” the Court noted, pointing out that they had earlier even commended the management for regularising FTAs while seeking similar opportunities for themselves.
The Court made several important observations:
- The scheme was framed at a particular point in time and could be reconsidered.
- The employer has the right to change policy in organisational interest.
- FTAs were not backdoor entrants; they were appointed through a proper selection process.
- The petitioners’ claim of being more meritorious lost force after they failed in the 2025 regular recruitment process.
On promotional concerns, the Court held that the fear of reduced chances was premature. It also recorded SJVNL’s statement that certain posts would be kept available for future promotions.
“The appointment of Fixed Term Appointees at initial stage cannot be termed as a back door entry,” the Bench observed.
The Court further clarified that while the advertisement did not mention the possibility of future regularisation, the petitioners later had a full opportunity to compete for regular posts but could not succeed.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Decision
Concluding that there was no legal infirmity in the policy, the Court refused to interfere.
“In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere in the decision of the SJVNL to regularize the Fixed Term Appointees,” the Bench held.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Yug Raj Thakur and Others vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Others
Case No.: CWP No. 11021 of 2024
Decision Date: 09 January 2026
