Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Order 21/05/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 more particularly the footnote at serial no.4 of the work order whereunder as soon as multi task workers are engaged by the person in whose favour work order has been granted equal number of ward boy/Attendant engaged by the petitioner required to be reduced.

[2025:RJ-JD:24841] (2 of 4) [CW-4571/2025]

2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is successful tenderer for supply of ward boy/Attendant and his contract is valid for two years commencing from 17.05.2023 to 16.05.2023 subject to extension of one year agreed between the parties while the said contract was in force, a fresh NIT was issued for supply of multi task workers. The petitioner was also one of the participant in the tender and is unsuccessful bidder and private respondent No.4 is the successful bidder in the fresh NIT for supply of man power of multi task workers. The period of contract is from 05.02.2025 to 28.05.2026 i.e. one year subject to extension of one year agreed by the parties. While issuing the work order in pursuance of subsequent NIT for supply of multi task workers, a condition was put in the footnote that to the proportionate engagement of the multi task workers, the existing man power supplied by the petitioner i.e. ward boy/attendant directed to be reduced. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The case of the private respondent is that the nature of duties and qualifications relating to the multi task workers for which the NIT was issued in which private respondent was the successful bidder and in pursuance of such a successful bidding, the impugned work order has been issued are different. The petitioner is nothing to do with the work order since he himself is one of the participant and was unsuccessful in the NIT and thereafter he resorted to stall the contract of the private respondent by challenging the impugned work order as he is not affected by such work order as nature of engagement is distinct and different.

5. As seen from the impugned work order, though the work order was issued for supply of multi task worker which according to the private respondent is a distinct characteristics of the posts and not pari materia with the employment of ward boy/attendant as their nature of duties are different however, while seeing the footnote of the work order, the footnote indicate that the proportionate to the man power engaged by the private respondents with the designation of multi task worker, the man power engaged by the petitioner i.e. word boy/attendant required to be reduced. This footnote to be allowed petitioner's contract get affected. Such condition is implemented it would amount to repudiation of contract by indirect method instead of resorting to the cancellation or any other steps to be taken relating to the existing contract in favour of the petitioner. In order to protect the interest of both the petitioner and the private respondent, this Court inclined to clarify that the work order which is issued in favour of private respondent shall not affect the work order of the petitioner. If the official respondent want to engage the services of [2025:RJ-JD:24841] (4 of 4) [CW-4571/2025] multi task workers they can do in terms of the work order issued, however, in the guise of engaging the multi task worker, the man power supplied by the petitioner shall not be disturbed. The private respondent is also entitle to execute the work order till valid period and thereafter if valid extension is there.