Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pooja Rani vs The State Of Himachal on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2022
Between:-
1. POOJA RANI, WIFE OF SH.
ASHWANI KUMAR, SURAT
BHAVAN, NEAR ISBT PANJARI,
POST OFFICE CHAURA MAIDAN,
TEHSIL SHIMLA, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P. AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS.
2. GARIMA KASHYAP, DAUGHTER
OF SH. KARAM SINGH, VILLAGE
LASSI, POST OFFICE ODIDHAR,
TEHSIL THUNAG, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. ....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. VISHWA BHUSHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, THROUGH
SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. DIRECTOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
BLOCK NO.27, SDA COMPLEX,
KASUMPTI, SHIMLA-9, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS
2
3. SARSAWTI DOT COM PRIVATE
LIMITED, BLOCK NO.24, 3RD
FLOOR, STPI BUILDING,
KASUMPTI, SHIMLA, SDA
COMPLEX KASUMPTI, SHIMLA-9,
.
H.P., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR.
4. H.P. STATE ELECTRONICS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD., FIRST FLOOR, IT BHAVAN,
MEHLI, SHIMLA-3, THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR. ....RESPONDENTS
(MR. RANJAN SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, FOR R-1 & R-2)
______________________________________________________
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day,
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief(s):-
"i That the notice dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii. That the respondents may further be directed to allow the petitioners to continue against the post of Programmer and date entry operator respectively under PMKSY 2.0 with State Level Nodal Agency, Department of Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, alongwith all ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS 3 consequential benefits i.e. seniority and arrears etc."
2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner .
No.1 had been engaged as Programmer by respondent No.3 on outsource basis w.e.f. 14.08.2020, whereas, petitioner No.2 had been engaged by respondent No.3 on outsource basis as Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 03.03.2021. An agreement was executed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.3 on 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-3), whereby, respondent No.3 agreed to provide/deploy manpower/supporting staff to the State on outsource basis for its projects. Petitioner No.1 worked for about one year & eight months, whereas, petitioner No.2 worked for about one year & one month and their services were discontinued vide Notice dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-4). Petitioners were informed that the contract of respondent No.3 with the Department of Rural Development had expired on 31.03.2022. However, the same was renewed till 30.04.2022. Services of the petitioners came to an end on 30.04.2022. Petitioners had been engaged on Project PMKSY 1.0 and the said project has been completed ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS 4 on 31.03.2022. Now, a new project has been started under the Name and Style WDC-PMKSY 2.0.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted .
that the order whereby services of the petitioners have been discontinued, was illegal and unjust. Hence, the Notice dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-4), deserves to be quashed. So far as respondents No.3 & 4 are concerned, they were just service providers and provided manpower to respondents No.1 & 2, to enable them to complete the assignments of the Rural Development Department being carried on under PMKSY.
Petitioners had worked to the entire satisfaction of respondents No.1 & 2. The discontinuation of services of the petitioners on the ground of expiry of contract was illegal, as the project was still in existence.
4. Admittedly, petitioners were working on contract basis with respondent No.2 and as per deployment order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P-2), it is evident that petitioner No.2 was engaged on contract basis, as Aparna Sharma, Data Entry Operator, had resigned. It was specified in the order dated 03.03.2021 that the period of contract of petitioner No.2 would ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS 5 be on co-terminus basis with the department on outsource basis.
5. Annexure P-3 is an agreement executed between .
respondent No.3 and the State on 07.04.2017. A perusal of the said agreement reveals that the manpower would be provided by respondent No.3 to the locations in Himachal Pradesh, as specified by the State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA), Department of Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, to meet the requirements of its projects. It was also specified that the staff deployed by respondent No.3 would have no right to claim regularization on any post.
6. Annexure P-4 is the impugned Notice dated 16.04.2022, issued to the petitioners, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"Our contract with State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA), Department of Rural Development has expired on 31-03-2022 and on our special request it has been renewed till 30.04.2022 and there is no further scope of renewal. Since you were engaged only for SLNA, and there is no further chance of renewal.
Therefore, we will not be in a position to continue your services as there is no requirement from the department. Please treat ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS 6 this as notice of your discontinuation from the services, w.e.f. 30-4-2022.
You are required to relinquish your charge and handover all the records and assets in your .
possession to the concerned officer at your place of posting and obtain "No-Dues Certificate" from the client office to enable us settle your final account."
7. A perusal of the said Notice dated 16.04.2022 reveals that since the contract between respondent No.3 and the State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA), Department of Rural Development, had expired on 31.03.2022, respondent No.3 would not be in a position to continue with the services of the petitioners. Petitioners had been engaged only for State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) and there was no further chance of renewal of contract.
8. Since the project for which the petitioners had been engaged on outsource basis has already been completed, the respondents were justified in discontinuing with the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out a case that the project, in which the petitioners had been engaged on outsource basis, was still continuing. We are of the opinion that the services of the petitioners were liable to ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS 7 be discontinued as the project for which they had been engaged, has been completed. No ground for interference, while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction by this Court .
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.
9. Dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
r to ( Sabina )
Acting Chief Justice
( Satyen Vaidya )
June 13, 2022 Judge
(Yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS