Allahabad High Court
Chandan Yadav And 5 Others vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 22 July, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116200 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10415 of 2024 Petitioner :- Chandan Yadav And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sakshi Jaiswal,Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5.
2. Petitioners before this Court have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Corporation to engage them in their employment pursuant to some letter written by the authority on 28.10.2023.
3. It is submitted that since the petitioners have been recommended by the authority of the Corporation, Corporation is under obligation to at least consider the claim of the petitioners for employment.
4. Per contra, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the Corporation has argued that the petitioners are on the roll of a private company, namely, S.M.M. Infratech Pvt Ltd situated at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and not the employees of the Corporation. The petitioners having been depaneled by the company itself, they cannot seek any direction to the Corporation to offer them employment. It is also submitted that the Corporation has outsourced work to a private company and any dispute between employee of private company and private company becomes a matter of common law remedy and not this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also submitted by Shri Devesh Vikram that this controversy is no more res integra as in identical set of fact a petition being Writ A No. 10459 of 2023 (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Contract Employees Sangh Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) has come to be dismissed on merits regarding alleged rightful claim under the order dated 20.07.2023. It is also stated at the Bar that the order has attained finality and has not been appealed against by the said employees association.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has sought to distinguish his case on the ground that in his case there is already a recommendation in favour of the petitioners by an officer of the Corporation but could not dispute that except for this recommendation the private company has not come forward making any recommendation to the Corporation to engage petitioners in their work on behalf of the company.
6. In view of the above, I do not find the case in hand to be distinguishable on facts or on law per judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 10459 of 2023 (supra).
7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed. Consigned to record.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Nadeem