Outsourced Stenographers Cannot Claim Upgraded Designation Given Without Authority: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a writ petition by two outsourced stenographers who challenged the reversal of their designation from Senior Personal Assistant back to Stenographer, holding that the original upgrade was made without any authority of law.

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, sitting singly at the Uttarakhand High Court, dismissed a writ petition filed by two outsourced employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan who had been working as Stenographers through the Uttarakhand Pariyojna Nirman Limited (UPNL). The petitioners challenged a communication dated 8 April 2026 issued by the Chief General Manager of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, which directed that the designation of persons engaged on contract through outsourcing be restored to what UPNL had originally specified when sponsoring them. The court held that the earlier upgrade of their designation to Senior Personal Assistant, made by the then Chief General Manager on 20 February 2021, was without any authority of law and could lawfully be corrected by the competent authority.

How the Petitioners Came to Be Engaged

Petitioner no. 1 was sponsored by UPNL (respondent no. 3) for contractual engagement as a Stenographer with Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, pursuant to a request made by the Jal Sansthan vide letter dated 17 March 2012. Petitioner no. 2 was similarly engaged as a Stenographer in 2014, again pursuant to a request by Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan to UPNL.

Both petitioners were, therefore, outsourced employees. They were not directly recruited by Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. UPNL, the outsourcing agency, had sponsored them specifically for the post of Stenographer.

On 20 February 2021, the then Chief General Manager of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan issued an order upgrading the status of the petitioners to Senior Personal Assistant. The petitioners contended that this upgrade entitled them to continue in that capacity and that their designation could not be reduced back to Stenographer.

The Impugned Communication of April 2026

The communication dated 8 April 2026, issued by the Chief General Manager of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan and addressed to UPNL, informed the outsourcing agency that the competent authority had decided to restore the designation of outsourced contract employees to what UPNL had originally specified while sponsoring them for engagement. The court noted that this decision appeared to have been taken in the light of government orders issued from time to time.

The petitioners challenged this communication by way of a writ petition, arguing that their status as Senior Personal Assistant had been validly conferred and could not be unilaterally reversed.

Rival Contentions

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order dated 20 February 2021 had conferred a legitimate status on the petitioners and that respondent no. 1 could not unilaterally undo it. Reliance was placed on Clause 3(6) of a Government Order dated 3 February 2026, which the petitioners read as entitling them to benefits admissible for the post against which they were presently serving.

Counsel for Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan countered that the petitioners were outsourced employees engaged through UPNL and could not claim any status based on contractual engagement. He submitted that the Jal Sansthan had merely requested UPNL to supply manpower, and UPNL had sponsored the petitioners for the role of Stenographer. Outsourced employees, he argued, are required to perform multifarious duties and cannot claim promotion from one designation to another when there is no direct master-servant relationship with the Jal Sansthan.

He further submitted that the then Chief General Manager had given the petitioners a new designation without any authority of law, and that when this anomaly came to the notice of the competent authority, the impugned communication was issued to correct it. He also raised a concern that the writ petition was filed to lay a foundation for claiming regularisation on the post of Senior Personal Assistant rather than Stenographer, and that the post of Senior Personal Assistant could only be filled by promotion, not by direct recruitment.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Tiwari accepted the position advanced by Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. The court held that outsourced or contract employees do not automatically acquire the status enjoyed by regular State employees. Long continuance in service does not, by itself, establish a direct employer-employee relationship with the State Government.

The court observed that engagement through an outsourcing agency does not necessarily indicate the existence of a sanctioned post, and that outsourced employees can be engaged even where no sanctioned post is available. Since the petitioners had been sponsored by UPNL specifically for engagement as Stenographers, and had never been sponsored for the post of Senior Personal Assistant, the upgrade given by the then Chief General Manager was without any authority of law.

On the Government Order dated 3 February 2026, the court read Clause 3(6) in full. While the first part of that clause provides that an outsourced employee shall be entitled to benefits for the post against which he is presently serving, the latter half provides that if the nature of work or duties has been changed, the employee shall be entitled to benefits for the post against which he or she was originally engaged. The court held that, read in this light, the impugned communication did not affect whatever benefits might accrue to the petitioners in future based on the State Government's decision regarding persons engaged on contract through UPNL.

The court further held that the competent authority was justified in restoring the petitioners' original status. A unilateral change of designation made by the Chief General Manager could be corrected by the competent authority, and such correction would not entail civil consequences to the petitioners. The court found that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the impugned communication.

On the question of promotion, the court stated that “outsourced employees do not have any right to claim promotion” and that the alteration in designation made by the Chief General Manager was therefore without any authority of law.

Outcome

The court found no reason to interfere with the communication dated 8 April 2026. The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.