Disposed

Ram Anuj and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024WRIA/7246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge addressed an urgent writ petition seeking quashing of a notice terminating outsourced security guards' employment and praying for command to retain them and pay salary. Despite objections on maintainability regarding their outsourced status, the court permitted the petitioners to continue discharging duties to ensure hospital security until competent authorities appoint replacemen

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to continue discharging duties as security guards at Community Health Centres until the next hearing date (05.09.2024) if no alternative security guards are appointed by the State a

Ram Anuj and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7246 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Anuj And Others

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hanumant Lal Yadav,Shailendra Singh Chauhan

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nirmit Srivastava,Puneet Chandra

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the opposite party nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5; Shri Mohit Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2; and Shri Vibhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.7/U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited.

¶8

This petition has been taken up on the mention being made yesterday pressing urgency.

¶9

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:

¶10

“ i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned notice dated 22.8.2024 issued by the Chief Medical Officer Sultanpur through Patrank No. N.H.M./Suraksha Guard / 2024-25/3654-7 dated 22.8.2024 contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this writ petition.

¶11

ii.. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the opp. parties not to remove the petitioners from the service i.e. from the post of Security Guard since 31.08.2024.,and pay salary to them month to month and also direct the opp. parties to pay the salary for month July 2024. which is still unpaid.”

¶12

At the very outset, learned Additional C.S.C. as well as the

¶13

counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that all the petitioners have been engaged/employed through outsourcing agency and the employees who have been appointed by the outsource agency have got no legal right to file any writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By means of annexure-5, the appointment order of the petitioners have been enclosed collectively. Though all the appointment orders have been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur but the aforesaid orders say that the petitioners have been selected/appointed through outsourcing agency in the name of IT World, B8, Supermarket, Sultanpur and the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur has placed the petitioners at particular Community Health Centres, therefore, learned counsels for the opposite parties have stated that even if the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur has issued a latter directing the petitioners to submit their joining at particular Community Health Centres pursuant to the appointment being made by the service agency, they will have got no legal right to raise their claims on the post in question i.e., ‘security guard’.

¶14

Learned counsels for the opposite parties have further stated that the impugned notice has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur to the Director of outsourcing agency apprising that the services of all 40 security guards, who have been appointed by such agency, would be dispensed with on 31.08.2024 and fresh appointment of security guards shall be made through U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited i.e., opposite party no. 7.

¶15

On the aforesaid objections so raised by the learned counsels for the opposite parties, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are discharging their duties of security guards with utmost sincerity and dedication and if the

¶16

petitioners are disengaged w.e.f. 31.08.2024, the Community Health Centres, where the petitioners are discharging their duties, would not be having any security guard and in that case, there would be a threat perception, therefore, till any regular appointment of security guards is made strictly in accordance with law, the petitioners may be permitted to discharge their duties. However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioners are outsourced employees.

¶17

On being confronted, learned Additional C.S.C. as well as other learned counsels for the opposite parties as to whether any proper arrangements have been done to depute/appoint security guards on the Community Health Centres to discharge their duties after 31.08.2024 so that those hospitals/Community Health Centres would remain safe without any threat of security, they have stated that they have no specific instructions on that point inasmuch as this petition has been filed yesterday.

¶18

On being asked from learned counsel for the opposite party no.7 as to whether any State authority has contacted him to depute any security guards on such Community Health Centres, he has also submitted that he has no instructions on that.

¶19

Therefore, all the counsels for the respective opposite parties have prayed that they may be given some reasonable time to seek instructions on that point.

¶20

Be that as it may, even if the petitioners have got no legal right to get retention on the post of security guard being outsourced employees but keeping in view that they are discharging very sensitive duty relating to the security of the hospitals and the employees thereof, therefore, those hospitals and the employees thereof may not be left without security. If the State Government/competent authority of the State has already arranged the security guards to appoint them on such

¶21

Community Health Centres, the petitioners would not be having any legal right to be retained there but if no arrangement to that effect has been done by the competent authority of the State Government, at least till appropriate arrangement regarding the security of the hospitals and the employees thereof is not made, the petitioners may be permitted to discharge their duties.

¶22

It is made clear that by passing this order, no legal right of the petitioners is being created but this order is being passed only to consider the interest of the hospitals and its staff relating to their security.

¶23

List this case on 05.09.2024 as fresh showing the name of Shri Vibhanshu Srivastava as counsel for the opposite party no. 7 in the cause list.

¶24

Till the next date of listing, if no security guards are appointed by the competent authority of the State or by the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur by following the due procedure of law, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue to discharge their duties till the next date of listing.

¶25

Since this order has been passed in the presence of all the learned counsels for the respective opposite parties, therefore, learned Additional C.S.C. shall intimate this order to the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur telephonically today itself and as soon as the order is uploaded, the computer generated copy of the order may be provided to the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur.

¶26

This matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases.

¶27

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Shravan

¶28

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

Ram Anuj and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Anuj and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 6 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

Pintu Alias Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Shahid @ Kallan @ Shahid Ali Sekh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another

Chheda Lal @ Chheda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Madan Nag vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Dayal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Shafiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others