Mohd. Azimur Rehman Kidwai vs Director Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohd. Azimur Rehman Kidwai vs Director Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interlocutory order only: counter affidavit directed within four weeks (specifically adverting to Jaggo principles), rejoinder affidavit within the following two weeks; petitioner permitted to place his appointment order on record; maintainability of the petition expressly left open; petition remains pending, to be listed thereafter.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition, given that the petitioner is an outsourced employee whose services were engaged through an outsourcing agency (question raised by respondents and expressly left open by the court). +1 more

Court's answer

The question of maintainability of the writ petition was not decided at this stage; it remains open and the respondents may raise it in their counter affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

Interim directions: respondents to file counter affidavit within four weeks, rejoinder affidavit may be filed within the next two weeks, and the matter to be listed thereafter.

Key takeaways

While filing the counter affidavit, the respondents are required to specifically advert to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra).ratio¶¶12
In the meantime, the petitioner may bring on record his appointment order, if any.ratio¶¶13
Stated incidentally (as recorded by the court): the Uma Devi judgment is understood by the court to provide for regularisation of service of those who work for a period of 10 years without any interim order; this is a passing observation, not adjudicated here.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.), WRIT - A No. 1584 of 2025, interim order dated 7.2.2025: Petitioner Mohd. Azimur Rehman Kidwai, engaged through successive outsourcing agencies since September 2014 (first as computer operator, later as reporting clerk) at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, alleges his services were dispensed with by the outsourcing agency (respondent no. 5). Counsel relies on the Supreme Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 in Jaggo vs Union of India (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), read with Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi ((2006) 4 SCC 1), to contend that even an outsourced employee is entitled to continue in the institute and to regularisation. Respondents contend the petition may not be maintainable because the petitioner is an outsourced employee. The court issues interim directions only: counter affidavit within four weeks specifically adverting to the principles laid down in Jaggo, rejoinder affidavit within the next two weeks, petitioner to furnish his appointment order if any, and the question of maintainability expressly left open for raising in the counter affidavit. Matter to be listed thereafter; no substantive adjudication on regularisation or maintainability at this stage.

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1584 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Azimur Rehman Kidwai Respondent :- Director Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Of Medical Sciences Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Srivastava,Amita Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Pushpila Bisht,C.S.C.

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard.

2. At the very outset, Ms Jaipriya, Advocate, holding brief of Ms Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 states that the petitioner is an outsourced employee and his services have been outsourced from the outsourcing agency and thus the writ petition may itself be not maintainable.

3. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner had been appointed through an outsourcing agency in September 2014 against the post of computer operator and thereafter as reporting clerk. He has been passed on from one outsourcing agency to the other and now his services have been dispensed with by the outsourcing agency namely the respondent no. 5.

4. Reliance has been placed on the recent judgement dated 20.12.2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs Union of India and others passed in SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024 to contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of various temporary employees and outsourced employees and have observed that continuing of such employee on long term temporary / contractual basis is with an intention to subvert the laudable intent of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi , ( 2006) 4 SCC 1 .

5. Incidentally, the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Uma Devi (supra) provides for regularisation of service of those employees work for a period of 10 years without any interim order.

6. The contention is that even though the petitioner may be a outsourced employee but considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) the petitioner is entitled to continue in the institute and is also entitled for having his services regularized.

7. Considering the aforesaid let the respondents file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks to which rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

8. List thereafter.

9. While filing the counter affidavit the respondent would specifically advert to the principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) .

10. In the meantime the petitioner may also bring on record his appointment order, if any.

11 . It is also open for the respondents to raise the issue of maintainability of the petition while filing the counter affidavit.

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 J. K. Dinkar

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