Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

________________________________________________________ vs Temple Trust Jawalamukhi And Others on 12 October, 2023

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                CWP No. 7653 of 2023
                                          Decided on: October 12, 2023
    ________________________________________________________
    Abhishek Kumar                                   ........... Petitioner




                                                                                .
                                      Versus





    Temple Trust Jawalamukhi and others               .... Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                     :      Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Mr. Rahul
                                                  Thakur, Advocates.




                                                   of
    For the respondents                    :      Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for
                                                  respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

                         rt       Nemo for respondent Nos. 3 and 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:-:

""(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.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from disengaging the services of the petitioners from the Temple Trust Jawalamukhi to replace them with fresh hands in the Temple, till the regular appointment to the posts in question is .

made."

2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No notices are required to be issued to respondents Nod. 3 and 4 at this stage. The of above named 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 rt engaged to serve on outsource basis and as such, prayer made on their behalf in the instant petition deserves to be rejected.

3. Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as per instructions imparted to her, 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 complained against the petitioners, who from the day one, 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 28.9.2022 (Annexure P-1), placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioners were not given appointment by the Temple Trust, rather they were engaged through M/s Hameer Facility Management Pvt. Ltd ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS 3 on contract basis, though contract was initially for one year, but was renewed from time to time on requirement 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 of termination of contract of the employees engaged on outsource basis.

It is not the case of the petitioners that there are only nine persons, rt 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 22.9.2023, has not been taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Jawalaji Temple Trust, Jawala Ji Temple Jawala Ji, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, rather by the M/s Hameer Facility Management Pvt.Ltd outsource agency.

5. 5. 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, Himachal Pradesh to ensure that, while recruiting new persons on outsource basis, preference is given to the petitioners, who have otherwise gained sufficient experience of working in temple during their previous tenure. .

The petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge .

October 12, 2023 Vikrant of rt ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:38:11 :::CIS