2025:HHC:188 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7855 of 2022 Decided on: 02.01.2025 Smt. Dimple … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned oral order dated 18.06.2022 read with impugned order dated 18.10.2022 contained in Annexure P-7 passed by the respondents No. 3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside being wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, void ab-initio and non-est with a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:188 continue to perform her duties as hereto before 18.06.2022 in terms of condition No. 6 of Annexure P-2 dated 15.06.2022, by issuing writ of Certiorari. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents concerned to sanction casual leave for 17.06.2022 and pay wages to the petitioner w.e.f; 15.06.2017 to 17.06.2022 and also for the forced period of absence with effect from 18.06.2022 till re- engagement of the petitioner.” 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is an outsource employee and he has been engaged by a private entity. 3. This Court otherwise is also the considered view that with the efflux of time, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner at least by this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 15.06.2022, the petitioner was offered appointment as a Computer Operator in Block Development Office Balh, District Mandi, HP on outsource basis, however, the respondents did not allow her to perform her duties despite the fact that she had submitted her joining on the basis of her appointment letter. A perusal of Annexure P-2 demonstrates that the petitioner 3 2025:HHC:188 was offered appointment as a Computer Assistant for a period of one year on outsource basis or till completion of the project, for which, she was engaged by M/s R.K. & Company (Manpower Agency) (respondent No. 4), which agency was engaged by concerned Government Department to deploy workers on outsource basis. The Date of appointment letter is 15.06.2022. Life of the appointment letter has come to an end after one year from the date of issuance thereof, i.e. on 14.06.2023. As of today, no relief of reinstatement can be granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court and at the most if the petitioner is able to substantiate that the act of the respondents of not permitting her to perform her duties is bad in law, she may be entitled for damages. But this is a disputed question of fact in terms of the respective contentions of the parties and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence that may be led in support of their contentions by the parties. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court if so advised for the redressal of her grievance claim of damages. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 02, 2025 (narender)