# Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 378
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6678 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-chaurasiya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53555
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

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

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether contractual employees engaged as
Arogya Mitra / Prime Minister Arogya Mitra
(PMAM) under the Ayushman Bharat-Prime
Minister Jan Arogya Yojna (AB-PMJAY) have a
right to get their contract necessarily renewed
and also as to whether their rights would be
governed by the terms of the project/contract or
otherwise and whether the policy of outsourcing
such engagements is open to judicial review.

HEADNOTE
Contract Employment - Outsourcing -
Ayushman Bharat Scheme - No Right to
Renewal - Fraud on the Court - Judicial
Review of Policy - Dismissed
Petitioners were contractual employees
engaged between 2017-2018 as Arogya
Mitra
under
the
Central
Project
"Ayushman Bharat-Prime Minister Jan
Arogya
Yojna
(AB-PMJAY)".
Their
contracts were for fixed terms and were
not renewed. They challenged order dated
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
22.08.2023 issued by the CEO, State
Health
Agency
(SACHIS)
directing
engagement of Prime Minister Arogya
Mitra
(PMAM)
through
a
Beneficiary
Facilitation Agency (BFA) as outsourcing
agency,
and
order
dated
29.02.2024
stopping
further
renewal
of
earlier
contracts. Under amended guidelines of
the
Government
of
India
dated
13.10.2021 and the Government Order
dated
21.02.2024,
PMAMs
were
henceforth to be engaged only through
outsourcing
agencies/BFAs.
Petitioners
had no constitutional or statutory right to
seek
renewal
of
their
contracts
or
continuance
under
the
unamended
project.
Held : Contractual employees have got no
right to get their contract necessarily
renewed, and as such contracts have not
been renewed, the writ court cannot issue
any direction to renew their contract. The
policy of outsourcing is outside the scope
of judicial review. Outsourcing per se is
not prohibited in law. Non-disclosure and
misrepresentation of material facts to
obtain favourable interim orders amounts
to
playing
fraud
upon
the
Court.
Petitioners did not disclose the complete
and correct facts before the Court and, by
apprising wrong facts, obtained interim
order; therefore, this fact alone was a
ground to dismiss the writ petitions. The
writ petitions seeking continuance of
contractual employment and renewal of
contracts under a Government Project are
dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.
Honorarium already paid to the petitioners
shall not be recovered. (Para 33) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor R.C. Deka,
Director, AIIMS, (2018) 3 SCC 218; GRIDCO
Ltd. and Another v. Sadananda Doloi and
Others, (2011) 15 SCC 16; Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa
Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33; State of
U.P. and Others v. Principal, Abhay Nandan
Inter College and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 600;
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Contract
Employees Sangh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others,
2023:AHC:145507; Famina Singh v. State of
U.P. and 2 Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1203
List of Acts
Government Order dated
27.07.2018 and
16.08.2018 - Ayushman Bharat Scheme
Government Order dated 21.02.2024 - PMJAY
Guidelines
Office
Memorandum
dated
13.10.2021
-
Government of India (AB-PMJAY)
Constitution of India - Article 226
List of Keywords
Contractual employment - Arogya Mitra -
Ayushman Bharat Scheme - PMJAY -
Outsourcing policy - No right to renewal -
Misrepresentation - Fraud on Court -
Interim order vacated - Honorarium not
recoverable - Writ dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Common
challenge
to
orders
dated
22.08.2023 and 29.02.2024 issued by the
CEO, State Health Agency (SACHIS), U.P.,
directing engagement of Prime Minister
Arogya Mitra (PMAM) through outsourcing
agencies under the Ayushman BharatPMJAY scheme.

Appearances for Parties

Advs For Petitioner: Vikas Yadav, Shivam
Srivastava, Utkarsh Misra, Anubhav Awasthi,
Pankaj Kumar, Rahul Kumar Shukla, Prabhat
Kumar Mishra, Rashmi Pandey, Shashank Singh,
and others.

Advs For Respondents:C.S.C., Madhuka

## Text

378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in-harness
which
would
warrant
appointment on compassionate grounds.
Each case has its own peculiar features and is
required to be dealt with bearing in mind the
financial condition of the family. It is only in
"hand-to-mouth" cases that a claim for
compassionate appointment ought to be
considered and granted, if at all other
conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-to-mouth"
cases would include cases where the family of
the deceased is 'below poverty line' and
struggling to pay basic expenses such as food,
rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any
steady source of sustenance. This has to be
distinguished from a mere fall in standard of
life arising out of the death of the bread
earner."

14. Class IV appointments made on
compassionate grounds satisfy the aforesaid
tests laid down in Ajithkumar G.K.(supra)
more creditably than appointments on higher
posts.

15. The authorities below misdirected
themselves in law by applying the office
memorandum dated 16.07.2024 to the case of
the petitioner even though she is liable to be
considered under the previous scheme for
appointment on a Class IV post on
compassionate grounds.

16.
The
impugned
order
dated
22.04.2025 is liable to be set aside and is set
aside.

17. The petitioner is held entitled to be
considered for appointment on Class IV post
on compassionate ground.

18. Matter is remitted to the respondents
to process the appointment of the petitioner
within a period of three months and pass
appropriate
orders
consistent
with
the
observations made in this judgement.

19. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 378
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6678 of 2023
&
Connected With Other Cases

Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vikas Yadav, Shivam Srivastava, Utkarsh
Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Madhukar Ojha, Nishant Shukla,
Satya Prakash, Shikhar Srivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether contractual employees engaged as
Arogya Mitra / Prime Minister Arogya Mitra
(PMAM) under the Ayushman Bharat-Prime
Minister Jan Arogya Yojna (AB-PMJAY) have a
right to get their contract necessarily renewed
and also as to whether their rights would be
governed by the terms of the project/contract or
otherwise and whether the policy of outsourcing
such engagements is open to judicial review.

HEADNOTE
Contract Employment - Outsourcing -
Ayushman Bharat Scheme - No Right to
Renewal - Fraud on the Court - Judicial
Review of Policy - Dismissed
Petitioners were contractual employees
engaged between 2017-2018 as Arogya
Mitra
under
the
Central
Project
"Ayushman Bharat-Prime Minister Jan
Arogya
Yojna
(AB-PMJAY)".
Their
contracts were for fixed terms and were
not renewed. They challenged order dated
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
22.08.2023 issued by the CEO, State
Health
Agency
(SACHIS)
directing
engagement of Prime Minister Arogya
Mitra
(PMAM)
through
a
Beneficiary
Facilitation Agency (BFA) as outsourcing
agency,
and
order
dated
29.02.2024
stopping
further
renewal
of
earlier
contracts. Under amended guidelines of
the
Government
of
India
dated
13.10.2021 and the Government Order
dated
21.02.2024,
PMAMs
were
henceforth to be engaged only through
outsourcing
agencies/BFAs.
Petitioners
had no constitutional or statutory right to
seek
renewal
of
their
contracts
or
continuance
under
the
unamended
project.
Held : Contractual employees have got no
right to get their contract necessarily
renewed, and as such contracts have not
been renewed, the writ court cannot issue
any direction to renew their contract. The
policy of outsourcing is outside the scope
of judicial review. Outsourcing per se is
not prohibited in law. Non-disclosure and
misrepresentation of material facts to
obtain favourable interim orders amounts
to
playing
fraud
upon
the
Court.
Petitioners did not disclose the complete
and correct facts before the Court and, by
apprising wrong facts, obtained interim
order; therefore, this fact alone was a
ground to dismiss the writ petitions. The
writ petitions seeking continuance of
contractual employment and renewal of
contracts under a Government Project are
dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.
Honorarium already paid to the petitioners
shall not be recovered. (Para 33) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor R.C. Deka,
Director, AIIMS, (2018) 3 SCC 218; GRIDCO
Ltd. and Another v. Sadananda Doloi and
Others, (2011) 15 SCC 16; Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa
Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33; State of
U.P. and Others v. Principal, Abhay Nandan
Inter College and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 600;
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Contract
Employees Sangh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others,
2023:AHC:145507; Famina Singh v. State of
U.P. and 2 Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1203
List of Acts
Government Order dated
27.07.2018 and
16.08.2018 - Ayushman Bharat Scheme
Government Order dated 21.02.2024 - PMJAY
Guidelines
Office
Memorandum
dated
13.10.2021
-
Government of India (AB-PMJAY)
Constitution of India - Article 226
List of Keywords
Contractual employment - Arogya Mitra -
Ayushman Bharat Scheme - PMJAY -
Outsourcing policy - No right to renewal -
Misrepresentation - Fraud on Court -
Interim order vacated - Honorarium not
recoverable - Writ dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Common
challenge
to
orders
dated
22.08.2023 and 29.02.2024 issued by the
CEO, State Health Agency (SACHIS), U.P.,
directing engagement of Prime Minister
Arogya Mitra (PMAM) through outsourcing
agencies under the Ayushman BharatPMJAY scheme.

Appearances for Parties

Advs For Petitioner: Vikas Yadav, Shivam
Srivastava, Utkarsh Misra, Anubhav Awasthi,
Pankaj Kumar, Rahul Kumar Shukla, Prabhat
Kumar Mishra, Rashmi Pandey, Shashank Singh,
and others.

Advs For Respondents:C.S.C., Madhukar
Ojha, Nishant Shukla, Satya Prakash, Shikhar
Srivastava; Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, Senior
Advocate (CEO SACHIS); Sri Ran Vijay Singh,
A.C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the State-opposite parties, Sri
Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Madhukar Ojha,
learned counsel for the Chief Executive
Officer, State Health Agency, Ayushman
Bharat, Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna,
Hazratganj,
Lucknow
and
Sri
Satya
Prakash
Srivastava,
learned
counsel,
assisted by Sri Shikhar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the Beneficiary Facilitation
Agency.

2. Since grievance of all the petitioners
in the bunch of connected writ petitions is
similar and question of facts and law is also
similar, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, all the
aforesaid
writ
petitions
have
been
connected and are being decided by a
common order.

3. Notably, first interim order has been
granted by this Court on 03.10.2023 in
Writ-A No.7401 of 2023, Aman Kumar
and 16 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Thereafter, interim order has been granted
on 04.10.2023 in leading Writ-A No.6678
of 2023, Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and 36
Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, which
has been followed in some of the writ
petitions connect with this bunch of writ
petitions. The order dated 03.10.2023
passed in re; Aman Kumar (supra) reads as
under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners and learned State Counsel for
opposite parties.

2.
Petition
has
been
filed
challenging
order
dated
22.08.2023
whereby
petitioners
who
have
been
employed as contractual workers on the
post of Arogya Mitra have been required to
be employed through an outsourcing
agency.

3. It has been submitted that
petitioners were initially appointed on
contract basis for one year but their
services were renewed in pursuance of
terms of contract which is still subsisting
since petitioners are being paid their
honourarium till date in terms of the
contractual employment although they have
not been provided the latest order renewing
their contract services.

4. Learned State Counsel however
on the basis of written instructions dated
30.09.2023 submitted by Chief Medical
Officer, Raebareli submits that petitioners
have been employed on contract basis on the
post of Arogya Mitra. Impugned order/letter
dated 22.08.2023 in fact pertains to engaging
persons through outsourcing on the post of
Ayushman Mitra, which is completely a
different programme and therefore petitioners
would not be affected by the impugned order.

5. In regard to aforesaid, learned
State Counsel is granted four weeks' time to
file counter affidavit.

6.
In
view
of
submissions
advanced by learned State Counsel on the
basis of instructions, it is directed that until
further orders of this Court, petitioners
shall not be replaced by outsourcing nor
shall they be compelled to provide their
services through outsourcing in pursuance
of impugned order/letter dated 22.08.2023
till they continue on contract basis.

7. List on 07.11.2023."

4. The order dated 04.10.2023 passed
in re; Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya (supra)
reads as under:-
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381

"1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners, learned State Counsel for
opposite parties no. 2 and 4 to 11 as well
as opposite party no. 3.

2. On 15.09.2023, the following
orders were passed:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners and learned State Counsel for
the opposite parties.

2. Present petition has been filed
seeking quashing of the order dated
22.08.2023 whereby directions have been
issued for engaging 'Pradhan Mantri
Arogya Mitra (PMAM)' under the scheme
of "Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Swashthya
Mission".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted
that
petitioners
were
initially
appointed as 'Arogya Mitra' in the year 20172018 after following due process by the District
Health Society established under the State
Government and petitioners are still working
on the post in pursuance of their initial
contractual appointment. It is submitted that by
means of impugned order, the directions have
been issued for engagement of 'Arogya Mitra'
by out sourcing which will adversely affect the
continuance of petitioners on the said post
although there is no illegality or irregularity in
their appointments.

4. Learned State Counsel on the
basis of instructions, however, submits that
at present the implementation of impugned
order would not adversely affect the
petitioners' continuance as a contractual
employee in case the contracts are
subsisting.

5. In view of aforesaid, learned
State Counsel is granted two weeks' time to
seek instructions either to seek the
instructions or to file short affidavit with
regard to submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners.

6. List this case on 04.10.2023 as
fresh."

3.
In
pursuance
of
said
directions, learned State Counsel has been
provided instructions dated 29.09.2023,
which are taken on record. As per
instructions, it is admitted that the
petitioners are currently working on
contract basis with the department. The
written instructions issued by the Chief
Medical Officer, Sultanpur indicate that
services of petitioners are not being
dispensed with nor is any other person
being
appointed
on
their
place
by
outsourcing.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the
opposite parties are granted four weeks'
time to file their counter affidavits.

5. Until further orders of this
Court, it is provided that the petitioners'
services on the basis of their existing
contract shall not be interfered with in any
manner till the subsistence of their
contract.

6. List this case on 7.11.2023."

5. This Court vide para-3 in re; Aman
Kumar (supra) has noted a fact that the
petitioners were initially appointed on
contract basis for one year and their
services could have been renewed as the
petitioners have not been provided the
latest
order
renewing
their
contract
services, meaning thereby the petitioners
could not demonstrate any order renewing
the contract of the petitioners. This Court
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granted interim order on the submission so
made by the learned State Counsel to the
effect that by means of impugned order, the
petitioners would not be affected. Though
the aforesaid contention of learned State
Counsel was not correct as has been
considered herein below. Further, learned
State Counsel has again submitted before
this Court in leading writ petition i.e.
Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya (supra) that the
petitioners
are
currently
working
on
contract basis with the department and their
services would not be dispensed with nor
any other person would be appointed on
their place by outsourcing. Again, the
aforesaid submission of learned State
Counsel was not correct inasmuch as in
absence of any order renewing their
contract services, the petitioners could have
not
continued
in
appointment
but
considering the contention of learned State
Counsel and written instructions, interim
order has been granted in favour of the
petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
have been asked to show petitioners' right
or claim to be retained as contractual
employee without having the renewal of
their contractual services, no document has
been shown by the learned counsel for the
petitioners strengthening their right or
claim to that effect. However, they have
submitted that petitioners were initially
appointed as 'Arogya Mitra' in the year
2017-2018 after following due process by
the District Health Society established
under the State Government and the
petitioners are working on the post in
pursuance of their initial contractual
appointment. They have also submitted that
by means
of
impugned orders,
the
directions have been issued for engagement
of 'Arogya Mitra' by outsourcing which
will adversely affect the continuance of
petitioners on the said post although there
is no illegality or irregularity in their
appointments. Though Sri Upendra Nath
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted
by Sri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel for
the Chief Executive Officer, State Health
Agency,
Ayushman
Bharat,
Pradhan
Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna, Hazratganj,
Lucknow
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"SACHIS") has clarified the controversy
apprising
all
relevant
facts
and
circumstances of the issue from the very
beginning.

7. Sri Mishra has submitted that the
instant bunch of writ petitions have been
filed
by
the
petitioners/contractual
employees of a Central Project primarily
against an order dated 22.08.2023 issued by
the answering opposite party no.3 i.e. CEO,
SACHIS
whereby
all
the
District
Magistrates of State of U.P. were directed
to ensure that in compliance of the office
memorandum
dated
13.10.2021
of
Government of India, the engagement of
Prime Minister-Arogya Mitra (PMAM) in
the empanelled hospitals under a Central
project, namely, Ayushman Bharat-Prime
Minister Jan Arogya Yojna (hereinafter
referred
to
as
"AB-PMJAY")
shall
henceforth
be
ensured
through
the
Beneficiary
Facilitation
Agency
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"BFA")
empanelled by National Health Agency
(NHA), Government of India and PMAMs
currently working on contract basis shall be
engaged through the BFA by giving
preference to them, if they are otherwise
eligible but BFA shall henceforth, have
complete authority to engage and deploy
the
PMAMs
in
nine
empanelled
Government Hospitals. Out of the nine writ
petitions connected with this bunch, seven
petitions bearing Writ-A No. 6678 of 2023;
7401 of 2023, 8528 of 2023, 8203 of 2023,
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
383
7951 of 2023, 297 of 2024 and 593 of 2024
have been filed against the aforesaid order
dated 22.08.2023 of CEO, SACHIS.

8. The 8th and 9th petitions bearing
Writ-A No.2612 of 2024, Ajeet Kumar
Verma and Others Vs. State U.P. and 3
Others, and Writ-A No.2823 of 2024,
Birendra Kumar and 4 Others Vs. State
U.P. and 5 Others, have been filed against
the order dated 29.02.2024 issued by CEO,
SACHIS, whereby it was directed that in
view of the change introduced in the
method of engagement of PMAMs by the
NHA of Government of India in the Central
project, i.e. AB-PMJAY, i.e. engagement
through an outsourcing agency/BFA, which
in the instant case is "Writers Business
Services Pvt. Ltd.", all the District
Magistrates of the State were directed to
ensure that the written contracts of the
PMAMs currently engaged and deployed in
the empanelled Government Hospitals shall
not be renewed/extended beyond the end of
March, 2024 in any manner whatsoever,
because under the change guidelines of
Government of India and the Government
Order dated 21.02.2024, there is no
arrangement
for
directly
paying
any
honorarium to the currently engaged
Arogya Mitra from the funds of the
PMJAY project payable to the hospitals, as
all the PMAMs are henceforth to be
engaged
through
an
outsourcing
agencies/BFAs.

9. As per Sri Mishra, 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 an
interim order dated 04.10.2023 in the writ
petition bearing Writ-A No.6678 of 2023
(followed
in
other
connected
writ
petitions), which was to the effect that
"petitioners services on the basis of their
existing contract shall not be interfered
with in any manner till the subsistence of
their contract". Since this interim order
was obtained on the basis misrepresentation
and concealment of correct fact and by
playing fraud upon the Court by the
petitioners,
therefore,
application
for
dismissal of the writ petition, which was
initially filed alongwith the detailed counter
affidavit dated 07.11.2023 (to which RA
was filed on 12.12.2023), has again been
filed alongwith a short counter affidavit
dated 17.04.2025 and that application has
not been decided.

10. Brief facts of the case are that
Government of India introduced a very
ambitious Health Mission for providing
free health care facility upto Rs.5.0 lakh per
family
in
the
entire
country
called
"Ayushman
Bharat-National
Health
Protection Mission (hereinafter referred to
as "AB-NHPM") on 23.07.2018. The initial
unamended
project
i.e.
AB-NHPM
conceptualized engagement of support
workers called "Ayushman Mitra" at each
public hospitals/Empanelled Health Care
Provider/EHCP for facilitation of the
patients/beneficiaries, claim submissions
and their pre-authorizations under the
scheme. The object of the scheme was to
provide health care services upto Rs.5.00
lakh to the beneficiaries identified by Socio
Economic Caste Census (SECC). The State
Health Agency, (which in the instant case
was "SACHIS") had to ensure deployment
of Ayushman Mitras and their payment
through third party agencies. The State
Health Agency (hereinafter referred to as
"SHA") was also authorized to directly
hired Ayushman Mitras at
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State/District Hospitals.

11.
Government
Order
dated
27.07.2018 of the State provided that the
Ayushman Mitras to be engaged under the
aforesaid
Central
scheme/project
and
deployed at Government Hospitals shall be
selected by the District Health Committee
headed by either DM or CMO and these
Ayushman Mitras shall be paid honorarium
of Rs.5000/- per month from the fund
under the project called Rogi Kalyan Nidhi.
The Government Order dated 16.08.2018
of
the
State
clarified
the
earlier
Government
Order
dated
27.07.2018,
whereby it was provided that Ayushman
Mitras can be engaged through outsourcing
as well as by District Committee.

12. On 13.09.2018, with the Cabinet
approval, the aforesaid Central scheme/ABNHPM was implemented in the State for
providing health care facility upto Rs.5
lakh per family as pre-medical aid for
curing extremely serious disease of the
identified
beneficiaries.
For
implementation of the said Central scheme,
a society known as U.P. Swathya Bima
Kalyan Samiti (for short "UPSBKS"),
which later on adopted a brand name called
SACHIS (State Agency for Comprehensive
Health and Integrated Services) was
appointed as its Nodal Agency.

13. In compliance of the directions of
Central Government dated 20.12.2018, the
name of the aforesaid Central project was
changed from AB-NHPM to AB-PMJAY
(Ayushman Bharat-Prime Minister Jan
Arogya Yojna). The name of Ayushman
Mitra was changed to Prime Minister
Arogya Mitra.

14. Advertisement was issued for
engagement
of
Ayushman
Mitra
on
contract basis under AB-NHPM in the year
2018-19.
Selection
on
the
post
of
Ayushman Mitra under the project was to
be made only on contract basis. Thereafter,
the petitioners were engaged on contract
basis for a fixed period. Letter of the
concerned CMO dated 20.03.2020 has been
enclosed with the supplementary counter
affidavit regarding payment of fixed
honorarium
to
the
Ayushman
Mitra
engaged on contract basis only from the
Rogi Kalyan Nidhi of the hospital created
under the project. Vide Government Order
dated 16.10.2020, the State Government
enhanced the monthly honorariums payable
to PMAMs under AB-PMJAY from
Rs.5,000/-to Rs.10,000/-. In the year 201921, the Ayushman Mitras engaged under
the then existing/unamended AB-PMJAY
continued to work as contract employee
under the Central project.

15.
Government
of
India
after
reviewing the aforesaid Central Scheme i.e.
AB-PMJAY, found that one of the main
reason behind the low uptech of patients
under the project was poor deployment of
PMAMs resulting in Poor Beneficiary
Facilitation, pre-authorisation and claim
submission. Therefore, it was decided that
henceforth States should hire a centralized
outsourcing agency/BFAs from amongst
these
seven
BFAs
empanelled
by
Government of India through RFQs. These
BFAs (Beneficiary Facilitation Agency)
which are outsourcing agency shall be
solely responsible for engagement and
deployment of PMAMs at public hospitals.
These BFAs shall be paid from a deduction
of a fixed amount made from each patient
claim, which is being paid to the hospitals.

16. On 14.07.2023, SACHIS i.e. the
Nodal Agency ensured appointment of
Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. as BFA
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
for the State of U.P. for providing PMAMs
and their deployment in all public hospitals
under PMJAY. A service agreement was
executed between the State Health Agency
and the BFA on 14.08.2023 for providing
PMAMs to the State hospitals under ABPMJAY. BFA started engaging eligible
persons as PMAMs while giving preference
to the earlier contract employees, if they
were found eligible. On 22.08.2023, State
Health Agency/SACHIS, being the Nodal
Agency, issued the compliance order under
the amended provisions of AB-PMJAY and
directed all the District Magistrates to
ensure that since outsourcing agency/BFA
has been appointed for the State of U.P., as
per the directions of the Government of
India vide notification dated 13.10.2021, all
PMAMs shall henceforth be engaged and
deployed in Government Hospitals of the
State, only through BFA. It was also
observed that though the BFA has the
exclusive authority to engage PMAMs
under the Central project but the BFA has
been requested to give preference to the
already engaged/working PMAMs while
engaging them through the outsourcing
agency/BFA, if they are otherwise found
suitable. Payment to the BFA shall be made
only from the deductions of a fixed amount
made from each medical claim of the
patient, which is payable to the hospital.
Thus, there is no separate financial source
existing for making any payment to the
PMAMs under the amended AB-PMJAY
and they will get their honorarium only
from the outsourcing agency.

17. In the month of October, 2023,
several writ petitions were filed by the
existing PMAMs for challenging the
validity of the order dated 22.08.2023
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/nonexisting project called National Health
Mission.

18.
Sri
Mishra,
learned
Senior
Advocate, has submitted that since the
petitioners had made a false statement that
their contract was renewed and is still
subsisting, this Court directed that "the
petitioners' services on the basis of their
existing contract shall not be interfered
with in any manner till the subsistence of
their contract."

19. Further submission of Sri Mishra
is that on 07.11.2023, a detailed counter
affidavit
of
opposite
party
no.No.3/SACHIS was filed in the leading
petition bearing Writ-A No. 6678 of 2023
and in paras 20 and 38, it was explained
that Ayushman Mitra and Arogya Mitra are
not two different posts but the same post
has
the
changed
nomenclature.
The
petitioners, who are contract employees,
have no right to work under their previous
contract, which is not subsisting. Only the
outsourcing agency/BFA is competent to
engaged PMAMs on the post of Arogya
Mitra under the amended directions of the
project. So the petitioners should approach
the BFA for being engaged as PMAMs.

20.
Further
submission
is
that
rejoinder affidavit was filed on 12.12.2023
and misleading statements were made in
paras-17, 19, 20, 23, 26 and 43 that the
petitioners' engagement as PMAMs in the
year 2018 to 2020 was prior to the issuance
of
the
Office
Memorandum
dated
13.10.2021 of the Government of India,
hence it has no effect on the contractual
services of the petitioners. During the
subsistence of their contract, petitioners
cannot be forced to join the private
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
agency/BFA under the amended project
guidelines of the Government of India
dated 13.10.2021, as if their earlier contract
is still subsisting. BFA/outsourcing agency
has no power to change the appointing
authority
of
the
petitioners
i.e.
the
concerned Chief Medical Officer.

21.
Further,
the
Nodal
Agency/SACHIS issued an order dated
29.02.2024
directing
all
the
District
Magistrates to ensure that the contracts of
the earlier PMAMs under the unamended
AB-PMJAY may not be extended beyond a
period of March, 2024 as there are no
financial sources available for payment of
honorarium directly to PMAMs under the
amended project i.e. AB-PMJAY. This
order was also challenged in Writ-A 2612
of 2024, Ajeet Kumar Verma and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others.

22. Further submission is that during
pendency of the bunch of writ petitions, the
petitioner no.1 of the connected writ petition
bearing Writ-A No.7401 of 2023, Sri Aman
Kumar obtained his engagement on 30.04.2024
as PMAM under the BFA as the salary prospects
under the BFA were improved. Gross salary of
PMAMs got increased under the BFA from the
earlier honorarium of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.13,760/-
per month.

23. Sri Mishra has further submitted that
supplementary counter affidavit alongwith
application for dismissal of the writ petition
was filed by the opposite party no.3/SACHIS
on 17.04.2025 in the leading writ petition,
raising
preliminary
objections
regarding
misrepresentation of facts about subsistence of
their contract, concealment of fact by not
annexing either copies of their contract or
extensions/renewal of their contract and nonmaintainability of the writ petition for seeking
continuance of their contractual employment
under a project, that too by an order of this
Court as they don't have any constitutional or
statutory right to maintain such writ petition.
Since the petitioners do not have any
constitutional or statutory right to maintain the
instant bunch of petitions, hence the same
being not tenable in law, deserves to be
dismissed.

24. When learned counsels for the
petitioners have again been confronted on the
aforesaid facts, it has been informed that the
petitioners have not received any order of
renewal of their contract but they have been
discharging their duties since their initial
engagement
and
have
been
paid
their
honorarium, though most of the petitioners have
been paid honorarium after filing contempt
petitions and after the direction having been
issued by the Hon'ble Contempt Court.

25. On the aforesaid submissions of
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsels for the opposite parties have stated
that in view of the given facts and
circumstances, the petitioners do not have any
constitutional or statutory right to maintain the
instant bunch of writ petitions, hence the same
being not tenable in the eyes of law, deserve to
be dismissed.

26. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

27. The question before this Court is
as to whether the contractual employees
have a right to get their contract necessarily
renewed and also as to whether their rights
would be governed by the terms of the
project/contract or otherwise.

28. The next question is as to whether
the policy of outsourcing is outside the
scope of judicial review.
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387

29. The Apex Court in re; Yogesh
Mahajan
v.
Professor
R.C.
Deka,
Director, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, (2018) 3 SCC 218, GRIDCO
Ltd. and Another v. Sadananda Doloi
and Others, (2011) 15 SCC 16 and
Director,
Institute
of
Management
Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava
(Smt), (1992) 4 SCC 33, and this Court in
re; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
Contract Employees Sangh v. State of
U.P. and 5 Others, 2023: AHC: 145507
and Famina Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
2 Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1203,
have held that the 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.

30. Para-6 in re; Yogesh Mahajan
(supra) reads as under:-

"6. It is settled law that no contract
employee has a right to have his or her
contract renewed from time to time. That
being so, we are in agreement with the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court
that the petitioner was unable to show any
statutory or other right to have his contract
extended beyond 30-6-2010. At best, the
petitioner could claim that the authorities
concerned should consider extending his
contract. We find that in fact due consideration
was given to this and in spite of a favourable
recommendation having been made, the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find
it appropriate or necessary to continue with his
services on a contractual basis. We do not find
any arbitrariness in the view taken by the
authorities concerned and therefore reject this
contention of the petitioner."

31. Para-31 in re; GRIDCO Ltd.
(supra) reads as under:-

"31. Taking note of the decision
of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi case
[Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.,
(1991) 1 SCC 212 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 742]
this Court held that (Issac Peter case
[Excise Commr. v. Issac Peter, (1994) 4
SCC 104] , SCC p. 125, para 26) there was

"no
room
for
invoking
the
doctrine of fairness and reasonableness
against one party to the contract (State),
for the purpose of altering or adding to the
terms and conditions of the contract,
merely because it happens to be the State".

The Court said: (Issac Peter case
[Excise Commr. v. Issac Peter, (1994) 4
SCC 104] , SCC p. 125, para 26)

"26. ... It was a case of
termination from a post involving public
element. It was a case of non-government
servant holding a public office [Ed.: The
word "public office" is emphasised in
original.] , on account of which it was held
to be a matter within the public law field.
This decision too does not affirm the
principle now canvassed by the learned
counsel [that being of incorporating the
doctrine of fairness in contracts where
State is a party]. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that in case of contracts freely
entered into with the State, like the present
ones, there is no room for invoking the
doctrine of fairness and reasonableness
against one party to the contract (State),
for the purpose of altering or adding to the
terms and conditions of the contract,
merely because it happens to be the State.
In such cases, the mutual rights and
liabilities of the parties are governed by the
terms of the contracts (which may be
statutory in some cases) and the laws
relating
to
contracts.
It
must
be
remembered that these contracts are
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entered into pursuant to public auction,
floating of tenders or by negotiation. There
is no compulsion on anyone to enter into
these contracts. It is voluntary on both
sides."

(emphasis supplied)

32. Paragraphs no.20 & 23 in re;
Pushpa Srivastava (supra) read as under:-

"20. Because the six months'
period was coming to an end on February
28, 1991, she preferred the writ petition a
few days before and prayed for mandamus
which was granted by the learned Judge
under
the
impugned
judgment.
The
question is whether the directions are valid
in law. To our mind, it is clear that where
the appointment is contractual and by
efflux of time, the appointment comes to an
end, the respondent could have no right to
continue in the post. Once this conclusion
is arrived at, what requires to be examined
is, in view of the services of the respondent
being continued from time to time on 'ad
hoc' basis for more than a year whether
she is entitled to regularisation? The
answer should be in the negative. However,
reliance is placed by learned counsel on
behalf of the respondent on the case in
Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority [(1991) 1
SCC 28 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 25 : (1991) 15
ATC 697 : 1990 Supp (1) SCR 562] ."

23. In the instant case, there is no
such rule. The appointment was purely ad
hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited
period. Therefore, by expiry of the period
of six months, the right to remain in the
post comes to an end."

33. 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) 15 SCC 600,
in paragraphs no.42 and 46 has held as
under:-

"42. The Division Bench in
considering the view has entered into an
arena which was not required to be done.
Much labouring was done in interpreting
the word "outsourcing", however, such an
exercise ought to have been avoided as it
stands outside the scope of judicial review.
We have already noted the fact that
"outsourcing" as a matter of policy is
being introduced throughout the State. It is
one thing to say that it has to be given
effect to with caution as recommended by
the Seventh Central Pay Commission, and
another
to
strike
it
down
as
unconstitutional. "Outsourcing" per se is
not prohibited in law. It is clear that a
recruitment by way of "outsourcing" may
have its own deficiencies and pitfalls,
however, a decision to take "Outsourcing"
cannot be declared as ultra vires the
Constitution
on
the
basis
of
mere
presumption and assumption. Obviously,
we do not know the nature of the scheme
and safeguards attached to it.

46. The entire issue has to be
looked at from different perspective as well.
By the policy decision made, the appellants
have abolished the post though in an
indirect
way
by
providing
for
"outsourcing". Now, a court cannot create
or sustain the aforesaid post. There is
nothing on record to hold that the decision
7 All. Dr. Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389
made is extraneous as it is obviously made
applicable not only to the aided institutions
but also to all Government Departments as
well."

34. Besides, the petitioners did not
disclose the complete and correct facts
before this Court and apprising wrong facts
got interim order, therefore, this fact alone
may be the reason to dismiss these writ
petitions.

35. It has been consistent view of the
Apex Court that non-disclosure 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.

36. Further, it is the duty of the
petitioners to disclose all the complete and
correct facts and annex all the relevant
documents before the Court and it is not
open for the petitioners to selectively
disclose facts and deliberately conceal and
suppress inconvenient facts from the Court.

37. In view of the facts and
circumstances as well as the case laws so
cited by the parties, these 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 in the eyes of
law, therefore, these bunch of writ petitions
having no merits deserve to be dismissed
and the interim orders granted by this Court
deserve to be vacated.

38. 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.

39. Accordingly, these writ petitions
are dismissed.

40. Interim orders granted in the
aforesaid writ petitions shall stand vacated.

41. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 6849 of 2022
Connected With
Writ A No. 14778 of 2019

Dr. Vikas Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Pradeep Kumar
Rai, Sankalp Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether a Physical Training Instructor, serving
in the Harcourt Butler Technical University,
Kanpur, belongs to the academic cadre and a
teacher, entitling him to the benefit of Career
Advancement Scheme.
HEADNOTE
University Law - Harcourt Butler Technical
University Act, 2016 - Sections 3(5) and