Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/58/2019 on 18 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
AND
SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
18TH APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 58 OF 2019
Between:
Anoop Kumar and others. .......Petitioners
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for
respondent No. 3.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The petitioners have preferred the present writ
petition to seek the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated
23.10.2018 (11), 29.05.2018 (Annexure No. 12),
09.12.2018 (Annexure No. 14), order dated
15.10.2018 (Annexure No. 15).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2
to held a fresh meeting and relieve the petitioners
allocating like respondent no. 3 has been allocated
and relieve keeping in abeyance the order date
23-10-2018 after completing the allocation
proceedings for state of UP.
(iii) Issue any other order or direction which his
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
Award the cost of petition in favour of the
petitioner."
2. There are seven petitioners before us in the
present petition. The case of the petitioners is that they
were appointed between the year 2009 and the year 2013 in
the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation on contract basis to
serve in different capacities, such as Technical Assistants,
Computer Operators, and Labours. They are aggrieved by
the fact that upon bifurcation of the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation into two parts, namely U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation and the Uttarakhand State Warehousing
Corporation on 01.04.2016, despite the petitioners having
opted to remain with the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation, their options have not been accepted and they
have been asked to work with the Uttarakhand State
Warehousing Corporation, whereas, in other cases such as
of respondent No. 3, his option was accepted and he has
been retained in the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation.
3. Respondents have filed their counter-affidavits.
4. The reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh
took place by the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, when the
State of Uttarakhand (then known as 'Uttaranchal') was
carved out on and from 09.11.2000. The said Reorganiation
Act deals with the aspect of division of statutory
Corporations, such as the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing
Corporation. Section 67 of the Reorganisation Act reads as
follows:-
"67. General provision as to statutory
Corporations.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided by the foregoing provisions of this Part,
where any body corporate constituted under a
Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the
existing State of Uttar Pradesh or any part thereof
has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II become
an inter- State body corporate, then, the body
corporate shall, on and from the appointed day,
continue to function and operate in those areas in
respect of which it was functioning and operating
immediately before that day, subject to such
directions as may from time to time be issued by
the Central Government, until other provision is
made by law in respect of the said body
corporate.
(2) Any directions issued by the Central
Government under sub-section (1) in respect of
any such body corporate shall include a direction
that any law by which the said body corporate is
governed shall, in its application to that body
corporate, have effect subject to such exceptions
and modifications as may be specified in the
direction."
5. The petitioners have not been able to point-out
any provision of law, which vests them with a right to be
absorbed, upon bifurcation of the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation, by the parent Corporation alone.
6. Mr. Yadav submits that respondent No. 3, who
was similarly situated, has been assigned to the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation.
7. We find that respondent No. 3 was appointed in
the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation in the year 1999,
i.e. before the reorganization of the State in the year 2000.
On the other hand, all the petitioners were appointed in the
U.P. State Warehousing Corporation between 2009 and
2013, i.e. well after the bifurcation and reorganisation of the
State of Uttar Pradesh.
8. Therefore, on facts, there is no parity between the
case of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 3.
9. The submission of Mr. Yadav is that the
employees of the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation are
being given better treatment in terms of pay and
allowances, and they are also likely to be regularized in their
service.
10. Merely because the employees of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation, after the division of the said
Corporation with effect from 01.04.2016, are being paid
more wages or being given other benefits, it does not follow
that the service conditions of the petitioners have been
adversely affected.
11. Mr. Yadav has also submitted that the petitioners
have also assailed the order dated 15.10.2018, whereby the
services of the employees such as the petitioners were
sought to be outsourced.
12. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for respondent No. 1,
submits that only options were given to the contractual
employees of the Uttarakhand State Warehousing
Corporation, if they desire to continue in service through an
outsourcing agency. The petitioners have voluntarily opted
for the same as the pay-structure offered by the outsourcing
agency was better than the pay given by the Uttarakhand
State Warehousing Corporation to its employees.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Yadav submits that the
petitioners have not given any such option.
15. In case the petitioners have not opted to serve
through an outsourcing agency, their service would continue
with the Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation as
contractual employees, unless regularized.
16. We, therefore, dispose of this petition in the
aforesaid terms.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 18th April, 2023
Rathour
