Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/144/2021 on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                     2025:UHC:3545-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA No.144 of 2021
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Judgment: (Per Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Mr. Veer Kunwar Singh, learned counsel for appellant appearing through V.C.

2. Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Yashpal Singh, learned counsel holding brief Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.4/UPNL.

4. Writ petitioner has filed this intra court appeal against dismissal of his writ petition vide judgment dated 26.02.2021. Learned Single Judge held that since the appellant was engaged on contract through an outsourcing agency, namely, UPNL and he was disengaged on account of his implication in a criminal case under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders impugned by him in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was tried for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act and learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli acquitted him of the charge of offence under aforesaid sections. However, the judgment rendered by the trial court is not placed on record.

2025:UHC:3545-DB

6. Since as contract employee engaged through outsourcing agency, appellant has no lien on the post and the employer merely disengaged him from service on account of pendency of criminal trial, therefore, the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.351 of 2021 cannot be faulted.

7. Thus, we refuse to interfere with the impugned judgement, however, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that appellant has been acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, we dispose of the appeal by permitting the appellant to make representation to the competent authority for his reengagement. If he makes such representation within four weeks from today, the competent authority shall examine appellant's claim for reengagement as per law within three months thereafter.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.05.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F98 2, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.19 10:33:15 +05'30'