Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115522 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9754 of 2025 Petitioner :- Himendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Sankalp Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineet Sankalp on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. Petitioner before this Court is admittedly an employee who was appointed by a contract dated 20.12.2024 through outsourcing agency, but he has not been arrayed as respondent in this writ petition. 3. According to records, available, annexed along with this writ petition, petitioner was served with a notice dated 17.2.2025 that in terms of Government Order dated 21.12.2018 both the employer and employee, shall be entitled to terminate the contract by giving three months notice. 4. Writ Petition is silent as to whether any reply was submitted to the allegations made in the notice or not. It is further revealed from records that subsequently, petitioner was involved in a verbal exchange during removal of encroachment and a complaint was made on 15.5.2025 and a Committee was formed and the said Committee came to the conclusion that petitioner is not fit to work with Parvartan Dal of Nagar Nigam and his contract was terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was given to him nor he was allowed to place his case before the Committee. 6. Contents of contract and the above referred Government Order are not disputed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners service was on contract basis and was terminated in terms of G.O. dated 21.12.2018 after giving three months notice and subsequent allegations are only additional ground for termination. 8. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 9. Petitioner is a contractual appointee through outsourcing agency. 10. There is no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Nagar Nigam Varanasi, still in terms of Government Order dated 21.12.2018,petitioner was put on three months notice and since his conduct was not proper and as per the provisions of aforesaid Government Order, he can be removed after giving three months notice without any explanation or opportunity of hearing, therefore, the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have been granted opportunity to place his case before the Committee constituted in pursuance of occurrence occurred later on does not hold good since the petitioner was already put under notice of three months and subsequent allegation was only a other factor to terminate the contract of petitioner. 11. Petitioner has not been able to improve his conduct. Even there is no relationship with the petitioner and the respondent as employee or employer, still the respondents have followed the due procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 21.12.2018 and after putting the petitioner on notice of three months, his contract was cancelled. 12. There is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. 13. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad