Manish Kumar vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1422 P&H

CWP-11432-2021                                                       -1-

109
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                              CWP-11432-2021
                                                    Date of decision: 23.01.2023

MANISH KUMAR
                                                                    ...Petitioner

                                   VERSUS


UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER

                                                                 ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-   Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                  ****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition that has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing letter dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the services of the

petitioner have been dispensed with without issuing any notice, after the

petitioner had worked as Shift Attendant for more than three years, with a

further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to re-join the petitioner on the said post along with all

consequential benefits.

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioner being fully

eligible was appointed on the post of Shift Attendant by UHBVNL in the year

2016 on contract basis. However, his services came to be terminated on

12.07.2019 vide impugned order. Aggrieved against the said termination order,

1 of 4

the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would lay great stress on the

fact that after having served for a period of alomost three years, his services

have been terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing while further

submitting that the connected matter is pending in this Court i.e.

CWP No.24060 of 2019, titled as Pawan Kumar versus UHBVNL and another,

which is listed for 10.02.2023. It is argued that the procedure of termination

for contractual employee would envisage due notice and opportunity of

hearing. He would rely upon a judgment rendered by this Court in

CWP No.19281 of 2018, titled as Rashmi Sharma versus Mewat

Development Agency and others, decided on 14.10.2019, in support of his

arguments.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms. Nikita Goel, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf

of the respondents and would argue that the petitioner herein was appointed as

Shift Attendant and was neither a permanent employee/temporary employee or

an employee appointed on contract basis. In fact, UHBVNL had appointed

M/s Shree Jee Man Power Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad as an outsourcing

agency to provide services to the respondents and the petitioner herein was in

service with the respondents purely as a person whose services were supplied

through the said Contractor.

6. It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the

respondents and the petitioner herein. In fact, services of the petitioner have

been dispensed with by the outsourcing agency and not by the respondents

itself. It is further submitted that the instant writ petition would not be

2 of 4

maintainable in the present situation. Reliance in this regard has been placed

upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Nishan Singh and others versus

State of Punjab and others, 2014 (11) RCR (Civil) 262; Sharanbir Kaur

versus State of Punjab and others, LPA No.1910 of 2018, decided on

10.12.2018; Vikash versus The State of Haryana and others, CWP No.19762

of 2018, decided on 11.12.2019; Yamin and others versus State of Haryana

and others, CWP No.1822 of 2019, decided on 19.08.2020 and Balbeer Singh

and others versus Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and others,

CWP No.17478 of 2020, decided on 07.12.2020, in support of her arguments.

It is argued that the Division Bench of this Court in Nishan Singh's case (supra)

has clearly held that the service provider is not an agency of the State to make

recruitments against the civil posts and, therefore, the writ petition itself would

not be maintainable.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused

the pleadings of the case as well as case laws cited.

8. The argument that the service of the petitioner could not have been

terminated without following the procedure of issuing show cause notice and

opportunity of hearing would have no bearing considering that the services of

the petitioner have been terminated by the service provider itself and not by the

respondents. This service provider had entered into an agreement with the

respondents to provide workforce on certain terms and conditions. In case the

petitioner herein is aggrieved against any action of the service provider in

terminating his services, he would have a remedy other than that of filing the

writ petition. The judgments, as relied upon by the respondents, are fully

applicable to the issue raised in the writ petition. There is no ground to

3 of 4

interfere in the issue raised.

9. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

                                                  (JAISHREE THAKUR)
23.01.2023                                              JUDGE
Chetan Thakur


                Whether speaking/reasoned         :     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                :     Yes/No




                                         4 of 4