Suresh Sharm a v. St at e of Ut t arakhand Ot hers

Mr. M.C. Pant , Adv ocat e, for t he appellant . Mr. S.K. Nailwal, St anding Counsel, for t he St at e. Mr. Vinay Kum ar, Adv ocat e, for t he I nst it ut e Managem ent Com m it t ee. Mr. Raj endra Arya, Advocat e, i/ b Mr. Neeraj Garg, Adv ocat e for t he UPNL. J U D G M E N T H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Since com m on quest ions of law and fact are involved in t hese special appeals, t hese are being decided by t his com m on j udgm ent , however, for t he sake of brevit y, fact s of Special Appeal No. 213 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed here.

2. Appellant filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) 1865 of 2019 seeking t he following reliefs: “ i) issue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he t o respondent s cont inue wit h work on t he post of I nst ruct or ( Draft Mechanic) in Governm ent I ndust rial t he pet it ioner t o perm it 1 I nst it ut e, Bazpur, Dist rict Udham Training Singh Nagar wit hout any art ificial break. ii) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he respondent s t he t o be cont inued incent ive allowance of Rs. 2800/ - m ont h in pursuance of G.O. Dat ed 22.07.2016 which was not paid t o t he pet it ioner since Oct ober 2018. t o pay iii) issue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he respondent s t o grant m inim um salary of cont ract I nst ruct ors as provided by guideline dat ed 21.07.2014 issued under t he schem e I TI ’s Up- Gradat ion of 1396 Governm ent ( PPP t hrough Public Privat e Part nership Mode) .”

3. Writ pet it ion was dism issed by learned Single Judge j udgm ent dat ed 25.3.2021. Feeling aggrieved by dism issal of his writ pet it ion, appellant has filed t his appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat in t he year 2014, Cent ral Governm ent int roduced a schem e for upgradat ion of 1396 Governm ent I TI t hrough Public Privat e Part nership m ode. He subm it s t hat under t he said schem e, Cent ral Govt . provided ₹250 lakhs as int erest free loan t o Governm ent I TI chosen under t he schem e. He subm it s t hat under t he schem e, I nst it ut e Managem ent Com m it t ee was t o be const it ut ed and t eaching and non- t eaching em ployees were t o be engaged by t he I nst it ut e Managem ent Com m it t ee ( I MC) . He furt her subm it s t hat Principal of t he concerned I TI was t o hold t he posit ion of Secret ary in t he I nst it ut e Managem ent Com m it t ee. He subm it s t hat t he appellant was engaged as I nst ruct or w.e.f.

12.2.2015 by I MC t hrough an out sourcing agency, 2 nam ely, UPNL, and he served t o t he sat isfact ion of all concerned t ill 30.6.2019 and t hereaft er his services were abrupt ly t erm inat ed wit hout any reason or j ust ificat ion. He subm it s t hat since t erm inat ion of his service was m ade wit hout any valid reason and opport unit y of hearing was also not given, t herefore, order of t erm inat ion was liable t o be set aside, however learned Single Judge erred in dism issing t he writ pet it ion.

5. Mr. Vinay Kum ar, learned Counsel appearing for t he I MC, subm it s t hat since pet it ioner and ot her cont ract em ployees were engaged out of t he funds provided by Cent ral Governm ent and in t he absence of any ot her financial support from t he governm ent , it was not possible t o cont inue t he t eaching and non- t eaching em ployees in service, once t he fund provided by Cent ral Governm ent exhaust ed. He furt her subm it s t hat cont ract em ployees including t he appellant s were disengaged due t o non availabilit y of resources. He subm it s t hat learned Single Judge was j ust ified in dism issing t he writ pet it ion, having regard t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case.

6. We have gone t hrough t he im pugned j udgm ent . Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for not int erfering wit h disengagem ent of t he appellant s from service. We concur wit h t he reasoning given in t he im pugned j udgm ent . Thus t here is no scope for int erference.

7. However, having regard t o t he t hat appellant s have served on cont ract for sufficient ly long period of t im e and have earned valuable experience, 3 t herefore, we dispose of t hese appeals grant ing libert y t o appellant s t o m ake represent at ion t o t he Direct or, Em ploym ent and Training for t heir reengagem ent , on cont ract , against available vacancies. The Direct or shall exam ine t he claim of appellant s for reengagem ent , if work and post is st ill available in any Governm ent I TI and pass appropriat e order, wit hin four m ont hs from t he dat e of receipt of represent at ion. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 2 5 .6 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 4