Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar & Ors vs Temple Trust Jawalamukhi & Ors on 4 October, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7273 of 2023
Date of decision: 04.10.2023
.
Vijay Kumar & Ors. ....Petitioner
Versus
Temple Trust Jawalamukhi & Ors. ....Respondents
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, J.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 ___________________________________________________ rt For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No. 2 to 4.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(Oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the letter dated 22.09.2023, issued by Assistant District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby intimation came to be given to Assistant Commissioner, Jawalaji Temple Trust, Jawala Ji Temple Jawala Ji, District Kangra, H.P. with regard to termination of contract of the employees (employed on outsource basis against 9 posts), petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following substantive reliefs:-
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:35:42 :::CIS 2
"(i) That the cancellation of the contract of appointment of the petitioners ordered to be made by respondent No.2, as conveyed through .
the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra to the Assistant Commissioner Shri Jawalaji Temple and further conveyed by the Temple Officer to respondent No.3 at Annexure P-4, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from disengaging the services of the petitioners of from the Temple Trust Jawalamukhi to replace them with fresh hands in the Temple, till the regular appointment to the posts in question is rt made."
2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel and Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4, respectively. The abovenamed counsel, while opposing prayer made in the instant petition, vehemently argued that at no point of time, appointment, if any, was ever given by Temple Trust, rather petitioners herein were engaged to serve on outsource basis and as such, prayer made on their behalf in the instant petition deserves to be rejected.
3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, has submitted that as per instructions imparted to him, 23 persons are now to be again recruited on outsources basis and as such, there was no occasion for Temple Trust to disengage the petitioners, especially, when there is nothing on record to suggest that anything adverse ever came to be ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:35:42 :::CIS 3 complained against the petitioners, who from the day have been diligently performing their duties to the satisfaction of the employer.
.
4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, especially, appointment letter dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioners were not given appointment by the Temple of Trust, rather they were engaged through M/s Hameer Facility Management Pvt. Ltd on contract basis, though contract was initially for one year, but was renewed from time to time on requirement rt basis. Even perusal of communication dated 22.09.2023, issued by Assistant District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala to Assistant Commissioner, Jawalaji Temple Trust, Jawala Ji Temple Jawala Ji, District Kangra, H.P. nowhere suggests that a specific request, if any, ever came to be made by the aforesaid authority to dispense with the services of the petitioners, rather in aforesaid communication, approval was given for termination of contract employees engaged on outsource basis. It is not the case of the petitioners that there are only nine persons, who were engaged on contract basis, rather it is admitted case of the parties that apart from the petitioners, many persons were engaged on contract basis, meaning thereby, decision to disengage the petitioners in terms of communication dated 22.09.2023, has not been taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Jawalaji Temple Trust, Jawala Ji Temple Jawala Ji, District Kangra, H.P, rather by the M/s Hameer Facility Management Pvt.Ltd outsource agency.
::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:35:42 :::CIS 45. In view of the above, relief as sought for, cannot be granted in the instant proceedings, however, having taken note of the .
fact that Temple Trust is contemplating to engage 23 new persons on outsource basis, this Court disposes of the present petition with the direction to Temple Trust Jawala Ji, District Kangra, H.P to ensure that while recruiting new persons on outsource basis, preference is given of to the petitioners, who have otherwise gained sufficient experience of working in temple during their previous tenure.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. rt (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 4th October, 2023 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2023 20:35:42 :::CIS