The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with the termination of contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels whose engagements had been extended until March 31, 2027. Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed two writ petitions, holding that the termination process complied with the notice requirement under the counsels’ appointment terms.
Background
The petitioners, including Anil Kumar and others and Mukesh Kumar and others, were engaged by District Legal Services Authorities under the Modified Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, 2022. Their contracts were extended until March 31, 2027.
However, following a National Legal Services Authority direction dated August 4, 2026, against renewing Legal Aid Defence Counsel contracts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh from September 2026 onwards, termination notices were issued on August 27, 2026, specifying September 30 as the termination date.
The notices were temporarily withdrawn on September 19 but revived through subsequent communications dated September 24. The counsels challenged the decision, arguing that fresh notices were necessary and that their extended contractual tenure could not be curtailed in this manner.
Justice Nidhi Gupta examined the appointment conditions and noted that Clause (f) permitted termination with one month’s notice or payment of one month’s retainership fee in lieu of notice.
The Court observed:
“The appointments of the petitioners are purely contractual in nature. Given the nature of appointment, petitioners have no vested right to demand continuation of Service.”
Rejecting the argument that fresh notices were required after the earlier notices were withdrawn, the Court noted that the September 19 communication had expressly described the withdrawal as temporary and directed the counsels to continue working until further orders.
The judgment explained:
“Thus, from a reading of the above it is crystal clear that notice dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-4) had only been temporarily withdrawn for the time being till further directions/orders were received from the competent authority in this regard.”
The Court held that the September 24 communication revived the earlier notice, which had already provided the required one-month advance notice. It also rejected the argument that the contracts extended until March 2027 could not be terminated before that date, noting that the appointment terms expressly permitted termination through notice.
The High Court found no merit in either petition and dismissed both writ petitions. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
