Abhishek Kumar vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 101 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                       Writ Petition (S/S) No. 37 of 2021
Abhishek Kumar                                                   ....... Petitioner

                                         Vs.

Union of India and others                                     ...... Respondents


Present:
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the writ petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Lalit
Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.

                                   JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs in the instant writ petition.

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 passed by respondent no.3 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 to forthwith release the entire outstanding salary of petitioner due w.e.f. 01.02.2020 and the outstanding DA and further to continue to pay the salary and DA to petitioner.

(i) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, be passed.

(ii) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner."

2. According to the petitioner, his services were taken by the respondent no.3 through outsourcing. The respondent no. 4 Devbhoomi Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. is the service provider. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition no. 190 of 2018 (S/S) Abhishek Kumar

vs. Union of India and others, (first writ petition) for regularization and other benefits, which is still pending. When salary, DA etc. were not paid to the petitioner, he moved a Civil Misc. Application No. 11188 of 2020 in the said writ petition, in which, on 20th November, 2020 directions were given to the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite pendency of the first writ petition, he has been transferred vide impugned order dated 24 December, 2020 at a place where there is no post of lower division clerk.

3. For regularization of his services, the first writ petition is already pending. With regard to non-payment of dues, an application has already been filed by the petitioner in the first writ petition, which has already been disposed of vide order dated 20th November, 2020.

4. Petitioner is providing his services through outsource service provider. Petitioner has no relationship of employer-employee with the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. If any contractual liability he has, it is qua respondent no.4, the service provider. In fact, the petitioner has not filed the order, by which, his services were deployed with the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. The issue of payment of salary has been raised in the first writ petition. Successive writ petition for such relief cannot be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has already filed another application seeking payment of salary in the pending first writ petition. But, when requested, as to where this fact is written in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this fact has not been recorded by him in the present writ petition.

6. As stated, the petitioner has no employer-employee relationship with the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. He has, in fact, no right to challenge the impugned order, by which, he has been transferred from one place to another. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.01.2021 Kaushal