Himachal Pradesh High Court
Akshay Thakur vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Akshay Thakur Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
.
CWP No. 3774/202207.07.2022 Present: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. R.S. Dogra, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 06.07.2022, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"2. In this regard, it is submitted that a meeting to finalize the terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement for hiring Junior Engineer (Civil) on outsource basis through Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (HPSEDC Ltd) was held in the office of respondent No. 2 i.e. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests on 04.07.2022 at 3:00 PM.
3. In the meeting, the Deputy Manager of HPSEDC Ltd was present as a representative of HPSEDC Ltd. The terms and conditions of tripartite agreement which require amendment/deletion etc. were discussed in detail with the Deputy Manager, HPSEDC Ltd. After discussion the Deputy Manager, HPSEDC Ltd was of the view that the amendments which have been proposed to be carried out by the Department in the tripartite agreement for hiring J.E. (Civil) on outsource basis are required to be approved by the management of the HPSEDC Ltd.::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2022 20:06:43 :::CIS
4. The draft tripartite agreement duly amended as per the requirement of H.P. .
Department has already been sent to the office of HPSEDC Ltd on 05.07.2022 (Annexure R-I) for approval and finalizing the same. The response from the office of MD, HPSEDC Ltd is awaited in the matter.
5. It is further submitted that the tripartite agreement for outsourcing of Junior Engineer (Civil) will be executed only after assessing the eligibility and suitability of the outsourced persons for the post of J.E. (Civil) and completing all codal formalities.
6. However, it is reiterated that there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 to 3 as the petitioners have not been appointed by the respondent No. 1 to 3. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standai to file the present CWPs against respondent No. 1 to 3. Petitioners have no cause of action against respondent No. 1 to 3."
It is rather strange that the official respondents have resorted to make the appointments without finalizing the terms and conditions for the same and that too only after offering appointment to the petitioner. It is only for this reason that the joining of the petitioner has not been accepted.
Not only this, it is specifically stated by Sh.
Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner that out of the 12 candidates, 6 candidates have already been given appointments. If that be so, then the instructions as indicated above, do not appear to be correct.
::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2022 20:06:43 :::CISConfronted with this, learned Senior Additional .
Advocate General prays for and is granted time to obtain fresh instructions.
List on 08.07.2022.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 7th July 2022(Rohit/vs) ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2022 20:06:43 :::CIS