At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITU RAJ AWASTHI
For the Petitioners: Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
1. Notices on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue on the post on which they were appointed in the regular manner and also tr
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eat the petitioners as employees of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the year 2011-12 on the post of Orderly and Peon. The scheme to fill up the posts of Class-IV through outsourcing has been introduced in the District Forums vide letter dated 9.4.2013. The opposite parties vide office order dated 10.4.2013 have changed the nature of appointment of petitioners and it has been mentioned that the petitioners are working on the post of Orderly and Peon through outsourcing.
The submission is that once the petitioners were appointed on daily wages against the regular post, they could not have been treated to be engaged through outsourcing.
4. It is further submitted that Government Order dated 8.9.2010, which provides method of filling up of Class-IV posts though outsourcing, has been quashed vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2013, passed in Writ-A No. 4012 of 2011 (Ravendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another).
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of instructions submits that on creation of additional benches in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the posts of staff including posts of Ardali and Chaprasi were sanctioned vide Government Order dated 13.1.2011 and Government Order dated 21.5.2012. Learned Standing Counsel has placed the copies of Government Order dated 13.1.2011 and 21.5.2012, which are taken on record. The said orders itself provide the method of filling up of Class-IV posts. It was specifically provided that Class-IV posts of Ardali and Chaprasi shall be filled up through outsourcing. The opposite parties have engaged Omax Security Private Limited as service provider which has engaged the petitioners to work at the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioners are not the employees of opposite parties and the writ petition is totally misconceived.
5. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records.
The admitted case of petitioners is that they were engaged on daily wages in the year 2011-12 against Class-IV post of Ardali and Chaprasi. The said posts were created vide Government Orders dated 13.1.2011 and 21.5.2012. The said Government Orders itself provides that Class-IV posts are to be filled up through outsourcing. The appointment letter of petitioners has not been enclosed with writ petition.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the scheme of outsourcing has been introduced in the District Forums vide letter dated 9.4.2013 is concerned, suffice is to observe that Incharge Registrar of the State Commission had, through letter dated 9.4.2013, informed the Chairman of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums that work of Chaowkidar and Safai Karmchari shall be done by engaging persons through outsourcing. It does not mean that before 9.4.2013 no person could have been engaged through outsourcing.
6. It is to be noted that in the judgment in the case of Ravendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another (Writ-A No. 4012 of 2011), the Court had come to conclusion that existing regular posts of Sweeper and Cook in the Police Department shall be filled up under U.P. Police Group-D Employees Service Rules, 2009 and on the basis of Government Order dated 8.9.2010 the same cannot be stopped. The Court finding the Government Order 8.9.2010 as patently illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the statute had quashed the said Government Order.
7. In the present case, posts on which the petitioners were engaged were created by Government Orders which itself provide the method of engagement i.e. the said Class-IV posts were to be filled up through outsourcing, as such, the benefit of the judgment in the case of Ravendra Singh (supra) cannot be said to be available to the petitioners.
8. The writ petition, being totally misconceived is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.