AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
Petitioners have sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to re-engage the petitioners as Security Guard (contractual) with the respondent no.4-Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners were engaged as Security Guard (contractual) through UPNL with the respondent no.4 on different dates. The work and conduct of the petitioners have been unblemished and they have been discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superior officers. The contractual engagement of the petitioners was always extended from time to time as initially they were appointed for a period of one year. But, suddenly, vide order dated 24.02.2024 issued under the hand of respondent no.4, petitioners were disengaged for the reason that in the year 2024, the extension was not granted to the petitioners and their services were thus terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2024. In the order dated 24.02.2024, it is also made clear that the work can only be taken from the petitioners w.e.f. 01.03.2024 onwards only in the event of extension of their contractual appointment. There is no dispute that the contractual engagement of the petitioners has never been extended in the year 2024.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide Government Order No.332/XVII-C-1/2024-09(26)2014(TC), Soldiers Welfare Department, Dehradun dated 27.02.2024, it has been provided by the State Government that if an employee engaged through outsourcing agency-UPNL is removed from his engagement without any reason, the said employee would be engaged by the appointing authority on his making an application within one month from the date of his removal. The copy of the Government Order has been supplied in the Court which is taken on record.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have submitted their representations separately to the respondent no.4 for their re-engagement and if a direction is issued to the respondent no.4 to decide the said representations within stipulated time, in the light of the Government Order dated 27.02.2024, as referred hereinabove, the cause of justice would sub-serve.
Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the aforesaid Government Order cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason that there is a ground for disengagement of the petitioners as their term was not extended, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been disengaged without any reason.
Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have working with the respondent-department for the last so many years, except three petitioners who have been working since 2021 & 2023. It would not be conducive to terminate their service simply on the ground that their term was not extended. From the record, it is not clear as to whether any attempt has been made by respondent no.4 to get the extension of the term of the petitioners.
To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the extension was always been given by the respondent no.4 itself, therefore, it would fall within the ambit and power of respondent no.4 to extend the term of the petitioners on the post of Security Guard.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed-off finally with a direction to the respondent no.4 to decide the representations of the petitioners submitted to him on different dates, annexed as annexure-4 collectively, to this writ petition, by a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of Government Order dated 27.02.2024 ignoring the reason that their term has not been extended, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.