Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/15/2021 on 8 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2021
08TH MARCH, 2021
Between:
Neelam Arya. .......Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. .......Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. D.K. Joshi.
Counsel for the respondent
nos. 1 and 3 : Mr. Vikas Pandey,
learned Standing
Counsel for
respondent.
Counsel for the respondent
no.2 : Mr. N.S. Pundir.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
Since, sufficient cause has been shown by
the appellant for the delay of 6 days in filing the
appeal, the delay is hereby condoned by this Court.
2. Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 1 of
2021) is disposed of.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties, this case is being decided at the
admission stage.
4. The appellant is aggrieved by the order
dated 05.12.2020, passed by learned Single Judge in
WPSS No. 1604 of 2020, whereby the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant and has upheld the termination order dated
24.10.2020, passed by respondent no.4, M/s
Devbhumi Enterprises.
5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the
appellant, Smt. Neelam Arya, is a resident of village
Pachna, Post Baijnath (Garur), District Bageshwar.
She claims that she belongs to a scheduled caste
community. According to her, she was initially
engaged by the Principal, Government Polytechnic,
(Garur), the respondent no.3, on 14.10.2009, on a
fixed honorarium of `1,000/- per month. From 2009-
2016, she continued to discharge her duty with the
Government Polytechnic, on the basis of the said
honorarium. In July 2016, the honorarium was
increased from `1,000 to `1,500. The appellant
continued to serve on a class IV post till July 2018.
However, subsequently, from August, 2018 her
services were outsourced from the respondent no.4.
2
Moreover, according to the Government Order dated
27.04.2020, while the honorarium had to be paid by
the outsourcing agency, the employees who were
being outsourced would remain with the principal
employer. According to the appellant, on 24.10.2020
her services have been terminated by the outsourcing
agency. Left with no other option, she filed a writ
petition before this Court. However, the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the
impugned order. Hence, the present appeal before
this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently contended that since, the appellant has
worked with the Government Polytechnic, for a
number of years, her services could not be terminated
by the respondent no.4. Secondly, the respondent
no.4 has passed a stigmatic order without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge is unjustified in concluding that
the appellant could not invoke the writ jurisdiction of
this Court, but must take recourse to the other legal
remedies available to him.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Government Polytechnic, the respondent No. 3
submits that admittedly, the termination order has
3
not been passed by the Government Polytechnic, but
has been passed by the outsourcing agency, the
respondent No.4. Since, the contract with the
outsourcing agency was coming to an end, the
outsourcing agency was competent and empowered
to terminate the services of the appellant. Secondly,
even if a stigmatic order has been passed by the
outsourcing agency, the appellant has ample alternate
remedies available to her. The outsourcing agency is
not a State or an instrumentality of the State under
the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
no writ would lie to the respondent no.4. Hence, the
learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the
writ petition. Thus, the learned counsel has supported
the impugned order.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the impugned order.
9. Although, the appellant may have been
engaged by the Principal, Government Polytechnic,
(Garur), for a number of years, but the fact remains
that presently her services were engaged by the
Government Polytechnic, through an outsourcing
agency, the respondent No. 4. The outsourcing
agency's contract was about to end. Therefore, the
outsourcing agency terminated the services of the
4
appellant. The service was not terminated by the
Government.
10. Admittedly, the outsourcing agency is
neither a State, nor an instrumentality of the State.
Thus, obviously, no writ would lie against the
respondent No.4, the outsourcing agency.
11. Therefore, the dispute is basically between
the appellant and the outsourcing agency. If the
appellant is so aggrieved by the termination of her
service, she has ample civil remedies available to her.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in
concluding that a writ petition would not lie, and the
power under the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked
by the appellant. Instead, she has sufficient alternate
remedies at her disposal.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court
does not find any illegality, or perversity in the order.
The appeal being devoid of merit is, hereby,
dismissed.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:08th March, 2021
Shubham
