Uttarakhand High Court
Suresh Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 25 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5381-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 213 of 2021
Suresh Sharma ... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
With
Special Appeal No. 223 of 2021
Special Appeal No. 226 of 2021
Special Appeal No. 228 of 2021
Special Appeal No. 229 of 2021
Special Appeal No. 230 of 2021
Special Appeal No. 231 of 2021
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel, for the State.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the Institute Management
Committee.
Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate, i/b Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate
for the UPNL.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these special appeals, these are being
decided by this common judgment, however, for the
sake of brevity, facts of Special Appeal No. 213 of 2021
alone are being considered and discussed here.
2. Appellant filed Writ Petition (S/S) 1865 of
2019 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to permit the petitioner to
continue with work on the post of Instructor
(Draft Mechanic) in Government Industrial
2025:UHC:5381-DB
Training Institute, Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar without any artificial break.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to be continued to pay the
incentive allowance of Rs. 2800/- month in
pursuance of G.O. Dated 22.07.2016 which
was not paid to the petitioner since October
2018.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to grant minimum salary of
contract Instructors as provided by guideline
dated 21.07.2014 issued under the scheme
Up-Gradation of 1396 Government ITI's
through Public Private Partnership (PPP
Mode)."
3. Writ petition was dismissed by learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 25.3.2021. Feeling
aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition, appellant
has filed this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits
that in the year 2014, Central Government introduced a
scheme for upgradation of 1396 Government ITI
through Public Private Partnership mode. He submits
that under the said scheme, Central Govt. provided
₹250 lakhs as interest free loan to Government ITI
chosen under the scheme. He submits that under the
scheme, Institute Management Committee was to be
constituted and teaching and non-teaching employees
were to be engaged by the Institute Management
Committee (IMC). He further submits that Principal of
the concerned ITI was to hold the position of Secretary
in the Institute Management Committee. He submits
that the appellant was engaged as Instructor w.e.f.
12.2.2015 by IMC through an outsourcing agency,
2025:UHC:5381-DB
namely, UPNL, and he served to the satisfaction of all
concerned till 30.6.2019 and thereafter his services
were abruptly terminated without any reason or
justification. He submits that since termination of his
service was made without any valid reason and
opportunity of hearing was also not given, therefore,
order of termination was liable to be set aside, however
learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ
petition.
5. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing
for the IMC, submits that since petitioner and other
contract employees were engaged out of the funds
provided by Central Government and in the absence of
any other financial support from the government, it was
not possible to continue the teaching and non-teaching
employees in service, once the fund provided by
Central Government exhausted. He further submits that
contract employees including the appellants were
disengaged due to non availability of resources. He
submits that learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing the writ petition, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
6. We have gone through the impugned
judgment. Learned Single Judge has given valid
reasons for not interfering with disengagement of the
appellants from service. We concur with the reasoning
given in the impugned judgment. Thus there is no
scope for interference.
7. However, having regard to the fact that
appellants have served on contract for sufficiently long
period of time and have earned valuable experience,
2025:UHC:5381-DB
therefore, we dispose of these appeals granting liberty
to appellants to make representation to the Director,
Employment and Training for their reengagement, on
contract, against available vacancies. The Director shall
examine the claim of appellants for reengagement, if
work and post is still available in any Government ITI
and pass appropriate order, within four months from
the date of receipt of representation.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
25.6.2025
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH
KUMAR
Date: 2025.06.30 10:18:39 +05'30'
