Disposed

Manoj Singh Papola v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Apr 2026WPSS/488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging non-extension of contract services for Junior Engineers under the Jal Jeevan Mission after regular appointments were made. The Court allowed the petitioners to submit representations to the competent authority for consideration against any available vacancies in the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to make representation for consideration against available vacancies; competent authority to decide within two months.

Manoj Singh Papola Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:UHC:2564

¶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/464/2025 With WPSS/463/2025 WPSS/465/2025 WPSS/488/2025 WPSS/496/2025 WPSS/497/2025 WPSS/502/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
			Mr. Ankush Singhal, Advocate for the petitioners.
			2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
			4. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the UPNL/respondent no. 4.
			5. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 464 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.
			6. Petitioners were engaged thorough outsourcing agency for discharging duties as Junior Engineer in Jal Jeevan Mission, which was implemented by Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. According to the
			petitioners, they were initially engaged for a period of about three

¶3

2026:UHC:2564

¶4

years till 31.03.2025, and upon expiry
of that term, their engagement was not extended any further.
7. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing & commanding the respondents to extend the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer as the petitioners are working for more than last 2-3 years in the said post in the respondent department without any break, as the Jal Jeevan Mission for which the petitioners were appointed is extended till the year 2028. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents restrain respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners from the said post in question and also to permit them to continue on the posts held by them i.e. Junior Engineer. iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10/03/2025 issued by respondent No-3 (Annexure No.2) iv. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to grant the salary to the petitioners which have not been granted since more than 6 months.”
8. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned
counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Jal
Sansthan submits that as many as
288 regular Junior Engineers were
appointed in the year 2025 and after
such regular appointment, there is no
vacancy left against which petitioners
can be engaged. He further submits
that petitioners were engaged through
outsourcing and an outsourced
employee has no lien on the post nor he can claim any right for

¶5

2026:UHC:2564

¶6

re-engagement, upon expiry of the term. 9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Jal Sansthan. 10. Since all the posts of Junior Engineers in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan have been filled by regular appointment, therefore there cannot be any direction for re-engaging the petitioners on contract through outsourcing agency. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that the Jal Jeevan Mission is a centrally funded scheme, which is likely to continue till 2028 and services of Junior Engineers are needed in that scheme, therefore, the respondents be directed to consider petitioners’ claim for engagement against vacancies available in the scheme. 12. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make representation(s) to the competent authority. If petitioners make representation(s) within two weeks, the competent authority shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within two months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.15 18:49:40 +05'30'

¶7

2026:UHC:2564

Manoj Singh Papola v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh Papola v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Similar cases

Ranveer Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Singh Kotwal Vs Badrinath Kedarnath Temple Committee

Virendra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipin Chandra Kaloni Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Singh Vs Uttarakhand Transport Ocrporation