The court upheld the contractual nature of the petitioners' services and found the appointment of the private agency to be in compliance with the NULM scheme.

ORDER :

1. Since the aforesaid petitions arise out of common order dated 26.03.2018 and agreement dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) (Colly), they are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :-

3. In W.P.(S) No.3135/2018

“10.1. Issue an appropriate writ and quash the challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 and the agreement dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure P/1 (Colly)), whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No. 30 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for being contrary to the scheme of NULM .

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.30, a private agency.

10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise.

10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.”

4. In W.P.(S) No.2963/2018

“10.1A Issue an appropriate writ and quash the agreement dated 21.01.2019 whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of NULM in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to respondent no. 8 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise in order to grant them continuation of service which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment contrary to the scheme of NULM.

10.2. Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8, a private agency.

10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise.

10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.”

5. In W.P.(S) No.3448/2018

“i) Issue appropriate writ and quash the challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 and the agreement dated 14.07.2016, (Annexure P/1 (Colly), whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondent No 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No. 8 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for begin contrary to the scheme of NULM.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8, a private agency.

iii) Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise.

10.(v) Issue an appropriate writ and quash the agreement dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure P/15), whereby, the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an abs