The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the state government and UP Higher Education Services Commission (UPHESC) to file their replies on a petition alleging that the commission was compelling its contractual employees to join as outsourced employees of a contractor engaged subsequently by the commission.
The court while staying the September 2, 2021 order of UPHESC asked the state government and the commission to file their replies in the case within 2 weeks and also listed the case after the expiry of two-week period.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra passed the above order on a petition filed by Mahaboob Ali who was engaged as a computer operator/clerk on contractual basis by the commission since 2011.
The court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue in the employment of the commission in the manner as was being done earlier during the pendency of the petition.
Advocate Tanisha J Monir appearing for Ali argued, “Petitioner was working satisfactorily for the last 10 years. However, on September 2, 2021 an order was passed by the commission which compelled the petitioner to join as an outsourced employee of a contractor.”
“Having been directly engaged as a contractual employee, the commission cannot compel the petitioner to continue in employment through an outsourced agency. There was no requirement whatsoever, of re-styling the petitioner as an outsourced employee if he was indeed an employee appointed on contractual basis, which clearly goes to show the malafide intention of the commission to deprive the petitioner of his right to seek regularisation and other allied benefits,” argued Monir.
{{/usCountry}}“Having been directly engaged as a contractual employee, the commission cannot compel the petitioner to continue in employment through an outsourced agency. There was no requirement whatsoever, of re-styling the petitioner as an outsourced employee if he was indeed an employee appointed on contractual basis, which clearly goes to show the malafide intention of the commission to deprive the petitioner of his right to seek regularisation and other allied benefits,” argued Monir.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed,” Prima facie this court finds no good ground for the commission to compel the petitioner to function as an outsourced employee of a contractor engaged subsequently by the commission.”