Summary of this article
The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that outsourced or contractual workers have no right to claim promotion.
As there is no direct employer-employee relationship, the organisation where they are posted cannot change their designation.
In a case involving two UPNL-sponsored employees, the court held that their designation upgrade in 2021 was without legal authority and could be lawfully reversed.
In a petition by an outsourced employee seeking promotion, the Uttarakhand High Court held that the status of an outsourced or contractual employee does not automatically become similar to that of a permanent employee. While hearing a writ petition filed by two outsourced employees engaged through Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL), a public-sector outsourcing agency in the state, Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was also hearing a petition filed by two contractual employees.
The court addressed whether an internal administration can grant an employee permanent status who is hired through external agencies. The ruling clarifies that without a direct recruitment contractual designations of an outsourced worker remain tied to the original terms of engagement and cannot be changed by an internal department upgrade.
The two petitioners, who were sponsored by the UPNL, for engagement with the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, filed the petition. Petitioner No. 1 was engaged as a contractual stenographer in 2012, and Petitioner No. 2 also joined in a similar capacity in 2014.
In February 2021, the Chief General Manager of the Jal Sansthan issued an order and upgraded these employees’ status to Senior Personal Assistant. However, after some time, when the competent authority changed, the designation change came into question. In April 2026, the then-current competent authority issued a communication to restore their original designation of stenographer, reported LiveLaw. The petitioners challenged this reversion, seeking to maintain their upgraded designation.
Arguments
The petitioners contended that their status cannot be changed unilaterally by the respondent and that they are entitled to serve as Senior Personal Assistants based on the 2021 order. The petitioners referred to Clause 3(6) of a government order dated February 3, 2026, to claim benefits under the upgraded designation and status.
On the other hand, the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan (respondent) argued that outsourced employees do not have the same entitlements as a direct recruit and must perform various duties as assigned. They maintained that there is no direct master-servant relationship, and thus, they are not legally eligible for promotion. They alleged that the 2021 upgrade was an unauthorised act meant to help the petitioners claim regularisation in the future.
Court Observation
The court observed that outsourced or contractual employees do not automatically acquire a status similar to regular state employees. It noted, “Petitioners were sponsored by respondent no. 3 for engagement as a Stenographer, and they were never sponsored for engagement as a Senior Personal Assistant.”
The court held, “Continuance of an outsourced employee in service for long period does not ipso facto establish a direct employer-employee relationship with the State Government,”and added, “As outsourced employee, petitioners do not have any direct employee-employer relationship with Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, therefore it was not open to Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan to upgrade the status of petitioners, who were having status of outsourced employee. Law is well settled that outsourced employees do not have any right to claim promotion, and the alteration in the designation made by the Chief General Manager of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan was, therefore, without any authority of law.”
Court Judgment
The court clarified that a unilateral change in designation by an official can be corrected by the competent authority and that such a correction does not entail any adverse civil consequences to the petitioners.
The court concluded that the petitioners were seeking the benefit they were not entitled to and dismissed their writ petition.
