2026:UHC:1020 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 4 4 2 / 2 0 2 6 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Priyansh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the UPNL/respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner was engaged through outsourcing in Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board on contract for 11 months. According to him, he was permitted to discharge duties only for a period of 4 months and thereafter his engagement was not extended any further. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure No.11) as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity and all consequential benefits. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, to compensate the Petitioner for the financial loss caused due to illegal termination by paying salary for the remaining contractual period or such other compensation as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. 2026:UHC:1020 iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board to decide the petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2024(Annexure No.12).” 4. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board submits that petitioner was not engaged against a post but he was engaged in a project funded by the Central Government; since the Central Government deputed a subject matter specialist to serve as Project Coordinator, therefore, petitioner’s engagement was not extended any further and UPNL was requested to withdraw the sponsorship of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel however, fairly submits that if petitioner makes a representation for re-engagement or any other grievance, the same shall be considered, as per law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation. If he makes representation to the competent authority, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within three weeks of its receipt. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.02.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 19:10:34 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1020