NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that initially his services were engaged by the Agency and as such, he got appointed on 6th October, 2017. The petitioner is working to the satisfaction of the respondents and is entitled to regularization. Contrary to the same, the respondents vide its order dated 17th September, 2019, discontinued the services of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed against the sanctioned post. Accordingly, his services are very much required as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service and also other reliefs.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Sanction was not taken for the post, but it was for the respondent Agency to engage the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has been engaged by the Agency and not by the Government. In these circumstances, if any relationship exists, it is between the petitioner and the Agency and not between the petitioner and the State. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He relies upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh, (1999) 3 SCC 601. He further submits that if there exists employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the services shall not be terminated.