Allahabad High Court
Awaiz vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:52121
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9832 of 2025
Awaiz
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
S.P. Singh Somvanshi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties1 to 4.
2. In view of order being passed in this petition, notices to opposite party no.5 stand dispensed with.
3. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 19.07.2025 whereby petitioner has been removed from the post of Computer Operator, on which he was engaged on outsourcing basis.
4. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged on aforesaid post on 13.04.2017 and has been working ever since on the said engagement to the full satisfaction of authorities concerned. It is submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that petitioner has been removed from his engagement on stigmatic grounds without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is also submitted that in terms of U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1956), petitioner was entitled to be provided either a warning or an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of impugned order. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Om Veer and others v. State of U.P and others[ Writ - A No. - 2175 of 2023].
5. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that petitioner being an outsourced employee, does not fall within the definition of Government employee and therefore there was no occasion for providing him any opportunity of hearing in terms of Rules of 1956.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was engaged through outsourcing by the Department through opposite party no.5, which is a private organization. Although, the impugned order indicates petitioner's removal on ground of negligence and may amount to a stigmatic order but in the considered opinion of this Court, since petitioner was never engaged directly by the Department concerned but only though outsourcing, at best he can be considered to be an employee of a private organization and not of the department concerned due to which he would not fall within the category of a Government employee and therefore neither Service Rules of 1956 nor Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 would be applicable upon him.
7. It has not been indicated that there is violation of any statutory provisions or even Government Orders with regard to removal of petitioner in the manner it has been done.
8. A perusal of the judgment and order rendered in Om Veer (supra) also indicates that the same is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case since in the said matter, the aspect was with regard to retention of certain persons employed through outsourcing while removal of other persons in similar manner and therefore, the judgment was passed on ground of discrimination and arbitrariness.
9. Evidently, the said judgment would be inapplicable in the present facts where there is no such allegation of any arbitrariness.
10. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence in the matter.
11. The petition being devoid of merits is therefore dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
September 2, 2025
kvg/-
