As per case facts, Appellant Swati Priyadarshini, an Assistant Project Coordinator, faced non-extension of her contract due to allegedly unsatisfactory work. This occurred after she had reported misconduct at a ... hostel, leading to its Memorandum of Understanding termination. Subsequently, she received multiple show-cause notices for purported negligence, non-cooperation, late attendance, and failure to submit reports. A Single Judge initially quashed her termination, deeming it stigmatic, but a Division Bench later overturned this decision, categorizing it as a simpliciter non-extension.The question arose whether the non-extension of her contractual service was genuinely a simpliciter termination or a stigmatic one that mandated a proper inquiry, especially when considered against the backdrop of the issued show-cause notices and the specific service conditions governing her employment.Finally, the Supreme Court determined that the respondents failed to adhere to the RGPSM's General Service Conditions, which required either a month's notice for inefficiency or immediate termination for undesirable activities, neither of which was properly applied. The Court concluded that the termination order carried adverse consequences for the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment, reinstated the Single Judge's order with modifications, granting the appellant notional continuation in service with other similar employees and 50% back wages. Furthermore, it restricted the respondents from initiating any fresh proceedings against her concerning past duties, allowing only for future action if warranted.