2026:HHC:30065 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.640 of 2020 Decided on : 20 th July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Nirmal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Respondent No.6 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.04.2021. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to continue with the services of the present petitioners against the post of Pump Operators and Helper. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to not engage any person at the cost of present petitioners by way of throwing away them from the job as mentioned above. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to formulate a policy for regularizing the services of the persons who have been employed like present petitioners on outsource basis, so that, exploitation could be stopped.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that petitioners No.1 to 4 were appointed against the posts of Pump Operator and petitioner No.5 as Helper on 12.09.2013. Petitioners No.1 to 4 were being paid Rs.4700/- as salary per month and petitioner No.5 was paid Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.658/- per month was being deducted from them towards EPF. It has further been averred that work for the operation and maintenance of Lifting Water Scheme Malari Balh Seena, which falls under Sub-Division Kalol, District Bilaspur, H.P., was awarded to respondent No.6, being contractor, who engaged the present petitioners. It has also been averred that a decision was taken by the respondents-State to award the above-mentioned work to respondent No.7 and their services came to an end on 03.02.2020. It has further been averred that no notice was issued to the petitioners to stop working under the Industrial Disputes Act before terminating 3 their services. 3. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the communication dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure P-10), whereby respondent No.6 was asked to handover the complete charge of the scheme to the Junior Engineer, IPH Section Kalol on or before 31.01.2020, have approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that their services have been orally disengaged w.e.f. 03.02.2020 without issuing any notice to them, which is patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It has further been averred that the respondents are trying to adjust other persons after removing the present petitioners. It has also been averred that the petitioners are qualified and experienced persons. It has further been averred that respondent No.7 has appointed the persons on the basis of D.O. note of the Member of Legislative Assembly and thus sought direction to the respondents to re-engage their services against the posts of Pump Operator and Helper. 4. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioners have no locus standi to file 4 and maintain the present petition since they were engaged by respondent No.6 and being paid by him. For all intents and purposes, the petitioners were employees of respondent No.6, on the work awarded to him by respondent No.4, for providing labour/manpower as per contract/agreement No.269 of 2016-17 as outsource persons and they cannot be said to be engaged by the respondent-Department. The work of Annual Repair Maintenance Operation of LWSS Malari Balh Seena in Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., was awarded to respondent No.6 on contract basis for 36 months, vide award letter dated 25.03.2017. The petitioners were engaged by respondent No.6 and as such they for all intents and purposes were the employees of respondent No.6. 5. It has further been averred that the contractual employees appointed through an outsourced agencies, do not have any right to seek continuation against the principal employer and as such prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Respondent No.7 filed reply to the petition and 5 averred that the petition is not maintainable against him since he was awarded the work in April, 2020 and further no worker of the earlier contractor was working in the scheme. He has engaged workers on outsource basis, who are working in the scheme. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioners were engaged by respondent No.6, to whom the contract was awarded. Though as per the certificates produced by the petitioners, they were engaged by respondent No.6 w.e.f. 12.09.2013 to 03.02.2020, but accordingly to the reply filed by the respondents-State, the contract was awarded to respondent No.6, as per award letter dated 25.03.2017 for 36 months, which came to an end on 28.03.2020. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to suggest that they were engaged prior to 2017 and respondent No.6, who issued the certificates, has not filed any reply to the petition and was proceeded ex parte on 30.04.2021. Therefore, it 6 cannot be construed that the petitioners were appointed by him for doing the work contract earlier to the award in the year 2017, vide letter dated 25.03.2017 for 36 months, which came to an end on 28.03.2020. 9. Not only this, once the contract was awarded to respondent No.6 for the maintenance of the scheme, which was only for 36 months, the employees engaged by him cannot claim the reliefs that their services ought to have been taken over by another contractor, to whom the contract was awarded. In case, such a plea is being accepted, it will lead to chaos and then the labour under every contractor to whom some work is awarded and he gets the same executed through the labour, will start claiming that since they have been engaged by the contractor for execution of the work awarded by the Government, their services are also required to be taken over by the respondents-State after completion of the work or to be engaged by another contractor. Thus, the relief claimed by the petitioners is not tenable in law and petition being devoid of merit, fails. 7 10. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20 th July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge