Disposed¶5

Khushi Ram v. Director Women Welfare

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2025WPSS/1474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPSS/1474/2025; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; 09.09.2025; Caretaker of Government Children's Home Haridwar returned to outsourcing agency UPNL after four children went missing; order dated 05.08.2025 by District Probation Officer challenged; writ petition disposed of with liberty to file representation within one week; decision as per law within three weeks thereafter; service/outsourcing employment dispute; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the District Probation Officer, Haridwar within one week; the District Probation Officer to examine the matter and take a decision as per law within three weeks thereafter. ¶5

Khushi Ram Vs Director Women Welfare — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:7997

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/1474/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Manish Lohani, Advocate petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holde State. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate respondents.	for the r for the holding for the
			2. Petitioner was engaged as Care	taker in
			Government Children’s Home in Haridwar w.e.f. 29.10.2015. He is aggr order dated 05.08.2025, passed by Probation Officer, Haridwar, whereby Manager, Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Nigam Limited (UPNL) has been infor petitioner is being returned to the out agency i.e. UPNL. Reason for issuing t is that, four children of Children’s Ho missing from the custody of the petition 3. Learned counsel for petitioner sub petitioner has been falsely implicated allegations levelled against him are	District ieved by District General Kalyan med that sourcing hat order me went er. mits that and the factually
			incorrect. He submits that if gi	ven an
			opportunity, then petitioner coul	d have
			explained the circumstances in which went missing. 4. Learned State Counsel submits	children that if

¶3

2025:UHC:7997

¶4

petitioner has anything to say, then he can make a representation to District Probation Officer. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation to District Probation Officer, Haridwar within one week from today. 6. If petitioner makes such representation within the stipulated time, District Probation Officer, Haridwar shall look into the matter and take decision as per law, within three weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.09.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 20:22:45 +05'30'

Khushi Ram v. Director Women Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushi Ram v. Director Women Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kartik Papnai Vs Union of India

Sanjay Pant Vs Uttarakhand Sachivalay Prashasan Vibhag

Dinesh Chandra Phulera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

G S Matiyani and Sons Vs State of Uttarakhand