Dismissed

Babulal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/4726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a direction to hand over his post as a driver to a new employee. The court held the petitioner to be an outsourced employee, not a college employee under Article 12, and found no termination or need for consent, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own cost.

Babulal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49163

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4726 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Babulal And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar,Brijendra Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjuli Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3, Ms. Anjuli Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party No.4 and Mr. Vishva Deep Pandey and Ms. Vandana Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.5, whose power filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29th May, 2024 passed by the Principal of the autonomous State Medical College, Sultanpur directing petitioner to hand over charge on the post of driver.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's services were provided to the college by the service provider (opposite party No.5) and in view of letter dated 24th May, 2024 passed by the service provider that they would not be able to provide services of petitioner after 31st May, 2024, the college concerned has by means of impugned order directed the petitioner to hand over charge to another driver.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that aforesaid impugned order amounts to termination of services of petitioner and even otherwise such a letter as has been issued by the service provider could not have been done without approval and consent of the medical college where petitioner was employed.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that there is no condition of service or contract whereby any consent or approval of the medical college was required to be taken by the service provider.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party No.5 submits that in view of the fact contract with service provider could not be continued beyond 31st May, 2024 the aforesaid impugned order has been passed.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from the impugned order itself that petitioner was provided for employment to the medical college by the service provider and was an outsourced employee. The impugned order clearly indicates that it is on account of letter dated 24th May, 2024 by the service provider that they would not be able to provide services of petitioner beyond 31st May, 2024 that he has been directed to hand over charge to another driver.

¶14

It is thus quite evident that petitioner's continue to be employees of the service provider which is an independent organization and does not come within purview of Article 12 of Constitution of India. Clearly the impugned order passed by the college concerned is not in the nature of termination of services. No provision of service or contract would be indicated by learned counsel for petitioner that any prior approval or consent of the medical college was required for service provider to issue letter dated 24th May, 2024.

¶15

In such circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 prabhat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Babulal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 5 Others

Sushil Kumar Rathore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Satish Mohan Seth Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Min. of Communications and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko and Another

Krishna Kant Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Mini. Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others