Abhilek Barthwal v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA

W RI T PETI TI ON ( S/ B) NO. 2 4 4 OF 2 0 1 6

4 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 4

Abhilekh Barthwal

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : None present

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent No. 1

: Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent No. 3

Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

JUDGMENT: ( per Hon 'ble Th e Act in g Ch ief Ju st ice Mr . Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

Respondent No. 2, i.e. Director, Uttarakhand Council for Biotechnology, Haldi, District Udham Singh Nagar made a request to respondent No. 3 Managing Director, Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited to sponsor name of a suitable candidate for engagement through outsourcing as Scientist Engineer. Pursuant to the said request, respondent No. 3 sponsored name of the petitioner

vide letter dated 23.02.2016, and petitioner joined as Scientist Engineer in Uttarakhand Council for Biotechnology, Haldi, District Udham Singh Nagar on

01.03.2016. Subsequently, Director, Uttarakhand Council for Biotechnology informed the Deputy General Manager, Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'UPNL') that services of the petitioner are not needed any more. This letter issued by Director, Uttarakhand Council for Biotechnology has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2) Petitioner contend that there is no complaint or adverse material against his work and conduct, therefore, he cannot be disengaged from service and the impugned communication issued by respondent No. 2 is thus liable to be quashed. 3)

Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing for UPNL, submits that petitioner's engagement was purely contractual through outsourcing agency, and since respondent No. 2 had apprised respondent No. 3 that services of the petitioner are no more needed, therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot do anything in the matter. He further submits that as outsourced employee, petitioner does not have any lien or right to hold the post and, since, the employer does not need the service of an outsource employee, therefore, UPNL cannot insist upon the employer

to retain the petitioner in employment. He further submits that no termination order has been passed against the petitioner, and petitioner has challenged an inter-departmental communication. 4)

We do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged on contract through outsourcing agency and, since, the employer, i.e. Uttarakhand Council for Biotechnology has expressed its inability to continue the petitioner in employment any further, therefore, this Court cannot compel respondent No. 2 to retain the petitioner as an employee. Thus, there is no scope of interference in the writ petition. 5)

The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed as such. No orders as to cost.

_________________________

MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI , A.C.J.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

Dt: 4TH DECEMBER, 2024 Negi

HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d 13aaf116e73351fdaf6878326386908a 7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990 FC51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88D DF7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2024.12.16 11:58:22 +05'30'