HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 285 of 2025 (S/S) Deepraj Bora ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. K.K. Harbola and Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. A.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the respondent no.2, Director, Training and Employment, Uttarakhand, Directorate at Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, the claim of the petitioner for salary has been denied. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged on outsource basis by the respondent no.3, Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pankhu, District Pithoragarh, on 11.03.2015. The outsource agency was M/s Creative Services, Chandrabhaga, Tanakpur Road, Pithoragarh. The petitioner was paid salary initially, but from the month of Februrary, 2017 till 31.12.2018, he was not paid any 2 salary, and with effect from 31.12.2018, he was removed from the services. The petitioner made various complaints seeking salary, but it was not paid. It is the case of the petitioner that in one of its communication, the respondent no.3, Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pankhu, District Pithoragarh, has submitted a report to Secretary, Other Backward Commission, Dehradun, and admitted that Rs. 1,55,112/- as honorarium is to be paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner claims the remaining amount of honorarium. 4. State was required to file objections, but it has not been filed. In fact, on 10.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:- “A person, who is employed by the respondent no.4, who is also an agency, has not been paid his dues since 2018. In the earlier round of litigation, directions were issued. But, now again, he has been denied the claim. Let learned State counsel get instructions, as to what is the issue? Why payment has been withheld for more than eight years? Who is responsible for it?” 5. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 24.03.2025, at the request of learned State Counsel, and on 26.03.2025, This Court passed the following order:- “Learned C.S.C. takes notice for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Issue notice to the respondent no.4. Steps to be taken within a week. 3 Counter affidavit be to filed within three weeks. A week thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed. List for final hearing on 06.05.2025, just after fresh cases. This Court makes it abundantly clear that no time extension shall be considered by either of the parties on whatsoever ground. It is a small issue. It shall be decided based on the pleadings that are filed and if any further pleading is not filed, based on the averments as made in the writ petition.” 6. State has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did work as instructor in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pakhu, District Pithoragarh, from 11.03.2015 till 31.12.2018; till January, 2017, he was paid salary, but from February, 2017, he has not been paid salary. In fact, it is honorarium, not salary; total Rs. 1,55,112/- is the amount of honorarium that is to be paid to the petitioner. 8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the respondent no.3, Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Pankhu, District Pithoragarh, had appointed the petitioner through an outsource agency without seeking approval from the higher authority. Therefore, payment has not been made. 9. The Court posed a question to learned State Counsel as to how and under what circumstances, the 4 petitioner was paid honorarium from 11.03.2015 till January, 2017. The answer is, “no instructions have been received.” 10. Admittedly, the petitioner did work for the period for which he is claiming his honorarium. Admittedly, he was paid salary from 11.03.2015 till January, 2017. But if the allegation of learned State Counsel is accepted, the question arises that if there was no approval from the higher authorities, how honorarium for that duration was paid to the petitioner? As stated, there is no reply from the State. State has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. In fact, it appears that State has no defence to make. A person was required to work in an Industrial Training Institute by its Principal. He (the petitioner) has been paid honorarium for a sufficient period, but thereafter, it was stopped. Be whatever the grounds were with the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to get honorarium for the period for which he was engaged. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. 11. The petition is allowed. 5 12. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from February 2017 to 31st December 2018 within a period of two months. Petitioner shall also be provided simple interest at the rate of 6per cent per annum on this amount. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Ravi Bisht