Disposed¶¶6

Vipin Chandra Kaloni v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Apr 2026WPSS/496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPSS/464/2025 with WPSS/463, 465, 488, 496, 497, 502 of 2025; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; decided 09.04.2026; 2026:UHC:2564. Outsourced Junior Engineers (Jal Jeevan Mission, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan as respondents 2 & 3; UPNL respondent 4; State of Uttarakhand) whose term expired 31.03.2025 sought re-engagement/extension, certiorari against order dt. 10/03/2025, and six months' withheld salary. Held: outsourced employee has no lien and no right to re-engagement on expiry of term; all Junior Engineer posts filled by regular appointment (288 appointed in 2025); no direction for re-engagement through outsourcing agency possible. Disposed of with liberty to represent to the competent authority (representations within 2 weeks; decision within 2 months as per law). No statutes or precedents cited; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation(s) to the competent authority; if made within two weeks, the competent authority to decide thereon as per law within two months. The principal prayers (extension/re-engagement, quashing of the order dated 10/03/2025, and payment of salary withheld for over six months) were not answered by any express direction of this Court.

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

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

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

Vipin Chandra Kaloni v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Chandra Kaloni v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Ranveer Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Singh Kotwal Vs Badrinath Kedarnath Temple Committee

Virendra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Papola Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Singh Vs Uttarakhand Transport Ocrporation