Uttarakhand High Court
Hayat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 520 of 2021
Hayat Singh ........... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........... Respondents
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht and Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 4.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the
respondent nos.2, 3 and 5.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue, Writ, Order or direction in the nature of
certiorari call for the records and quash the oral order
of termination of the petitioner's services dated
18.12.2020 passed by the respondents.
(b) Issue, Writ, Order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for the post on which the
petitioner was working and permit the petitioner to
continue to work on the said post till the contract
comes to end.
(c) Pass any other writ, order or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioners."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as
Security Guard with the respondent no.4, Government Medical
College, Haldwani, District Nainital on outsource basis. He was
deployed by the Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (for
short, "UPNL") on 01.07.2020. The agreement with UPNL was for one
year, but on 18.12.2020, the services of the petitioner were disengaged
without any prior notice, against the terms and conditions of the
contract between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, UPNL. The
petitioner gave a representation dated 05.01.2021, which was wrongly
replied on 14.01.2021 by UPNL on the ground that the petitioner joined
duty late on 13.12.2020 and he was under the influence of alcohol. It
was the case of the petitioner that he was not under the influence of
alcohol; the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of hearing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner and UPNL had one year contract for services; prior to it, his
services have been disengaged without affording him any opportunity
of hearing on wrong ground that he was under the influence of alcohol
because the petitioner was not under the influence of alcohol; since,
petitioner was working in a hospital, he could have been medically
examined; his pathological test could have been carried out, which had
not been, therefore, the disengagement is not in accordance with law.
Reference has been made to annexure no.1, an agreement that entered
between the petitioner and UPNL, which reveals that the agreement
was for one year, but second page, top lines clarifies that the duration
may be increased or decreased.
5. Petitioner services were taken by the respondent no.4,
Government Medical College, Haldwani, District Nainital as a Security
Guard on outsource basis; UPNL is the outsource agency. Petitioner
was not recruited or appointed on the basis of any advertisement. This
appointment is not under any service rules and its purely temporary as
stated, on outsource basis. If petitioner had any engagement or contract
with UPNL, it does not give rise an occasion for him to insist for
continuance of service with the respondent no. 4. Even otherwise the
contract which has been referred to does not stipulate that the tenure of
service, may not be reduced. In fact, top lines of second page of
annexure no.1, as referred, categorically stipulates that the tenure may
be reduced or increased. Therefore, this Court see no reason to interfere
in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
12.04.2021
Sanjay
