IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9893 of 2026 Decided on: 25.06.2026 Mohinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of HP and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 22-03- 2016 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No. 4, converting the services of the petitioner to outsourced basis and the order dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no2; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as an employee of the Public Works Department and to grant him all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the competent authority, in terms 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 whereof, his representation stands rejected. The representation has 2 been decided by the competent authority in light of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 12128 of 2025, titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State of HP and others. 3. Having perused the averments made in the writ petition and also the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as is being prayed for. The petitioner who had approached the Court earlier in the year 2025 and now by way of this writ petition, is seeking quashing of letter dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure P-3), copy whereof is appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-5. In terms of this communication dated 22.3.2016, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, HP PWD, Tanda, had written to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HP PWD, Palampur, on the subject “engagement of person(s) on outsourcing basis in the official Govt. Department(s)”, seeking information thereof and had intimated the Executive Engineer of the details of the persons engaged on outsource basis. As per the petitioner, since his initial engagement in the year 2009 till March, 2016, he was working with the respondent-Department as an employee of respondent No.1. However, except this bald assertion made in the writ petition, there 3 is no document appended with the petition to demonstrate said fact. In other words, there is not even an iota of evidence placed on record 3 by the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner indeed was engaged by the department. 4. Be that as it may, Annexure P-3, is just a communication addressed by one Officer to the Senior Officer intimating him the details of the persons engaged on outsource basis. This communication is dated 22.3.2016. As observed here-in- above, earlier the petitioner had approached this Court for the quashing of this communication in the year 2025 by way of CWP No 12119 of 2025 titled Mohinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, which was decided on 11th August, 2025 and in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the competent authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner by assigning the following reasons: “And whereas, the o/o Executive Engineer HPPWD Electrical Division Palampur has submitted the complete record of the case in this office on 17.09.2025. From the perusal of record it has been found that in the year 2007, the Medical College, Tanda had requested the respondents for the work job to maintain the 500 bedded hospital through contractor. Subsequently, the respondents have followed due 4 tender process and awarded the work R/M E-I to various Government N. R. Building in Dr. RPGMC Tanda (SH:- Engagement in 500 Bedded Hospital Building in Dr. R.PGMC Tanda, which was commenced w.e.f. 02.04.2008 to 16.06.2008 to Sourab Kuthiala Electrical Contractor. The contractor to whom the work was awarded had deployed the above named five petitioners for Performing the work mentioned above. As per record submitted by the o/o Executive Engineer HPPWD Electrical Division Palampur, the petitioners are still working under the Contract to: Sourabh Kuthiala Electricals and are his employees and also being paid by the contractor. Therefore, the respondents/state has no concern with the petitioners. Neither the petitioners have been given any appointment in accordance with R&P Rules, Policy or Act. by the respondents, 4 nor they have been issued any muster rolls etc. The petitioners are purely the employees/workers of the contractor. The petitioners who are the employees/workers of the petitioner can never be treated as employee of the state. There are large number of contractors in the state who have engaged employees/workers for executing/performing various works and they can not be treated as employees of the state. Every public employment can be given only in accordance with law 5 and such an illegality can not be committed by the state. Therefore, the claim of petitioners to treat them employee of the respondent department is completely baseless. So far as the claim of petitioners to quash the letter dated 22.03.2016 is concerned, the same is only a office communication erroneously and unauthorisely issued and the same does not give any right to petitioners to claim the service benefits. Even if some officer of the state gives an undertaking or statement to this effect, that illegally and unauthorisely will not bind the state which has to follow the mandate of law for recruitment to any public post. Moreover the contract dated 22.03.2016 stand withdrawn. In view of these facts and circumstances, the claim of petitioners is not maintainable under any circumstances and merits rejection. Now therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the claim of petitioners being baseless and not maintainable as such the representation of petitioners is considered and hereby rejected. May inform the parties accordingly.” 5. A perusal of the order passed by the competent authority demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that the award of the work of the construction of a 500 bedded hospital in Dr. RPGMC, Tanda, was passed in favour of the contractor and it was 6 the contractor, who had engaged the petitioner alongwith others for the purpose of execution of the work mentioned therein. It is also mentioned in the order that as per the records submitted by the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Electrical Division, Palampur, the petitioner was still working under the Contractor, namely, Saurav Kuthiala. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was an employee of Saurav Kuthaiala and was being paid the wages by the contractor. It is also mentioned in the order that the petitioner was never engaged by the Department and his engagement otherwise is purely as an employee of the contractor. 6. In this petition, no material has been placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the findings returned therein are perverse or contrary to the record. In fact, this Court finds that the petitioner has appended five Annexures with the writ petition. The first Annexure is dated 18.7.2007 in terms whereof, Senior Medical Superintendent of Dr. RPGMCS, Kangra wrote to the executive engineer HP PWD, Electrical, Palampur for deployment of electrical operation and maintenance staff in the Hospital. The second document is Annexure P-2, which is the Duty Roster for the month of March, 2016, reflecting therein the duties of the petitioner and other persons mentioned therein. Annexure P-3 is 7 communication dated 22.3.2016, details whereof have already been given in the other part of the judgment. Annexure P-4 is the order passed by the Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and Annexure P-5 is the copy of the order passed by the competent authority. 7. As observed hereinabove, even in this writ petition, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that he was either engaged by the Department or that the findings returned in the order in issue by the competent authority are perverse and not emanating from the record. No document has been appended by the petitioner demonstrating that he was engaged by the Department. No document has been appended by the petitioner demonstrating as to how, his wages are being paid. Further, no document has been appended by the petitioner demonstrating that his wages indeed are not being paid by the contractor, as is mentioned in the impugned order by the competent authority or that he was not engaged by the contractor concerned, as has been categorically mentioned in the order. 8. Therefore, in these circumstances, as no case is made out by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned order passed by the competent authority, the writ petition is dismissed, so also 8 pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 25, 2026 (narender)