IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 27878 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

AMIT KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI ANJANI KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUBLIC SERVANT RESIDENT OF WARD NO 1, SATPUDA COLONY JAY PRAKASH NAGAR ITARSI DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ESHAAN DATT- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH JAL NIGAM MARYADIT R/O D-WING 2ND FLOOR, VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MADHYA PRADESH JAL NIGAM MARYADIT DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. GENERAL MANAGER, M.P. JAL NIGAM MARYADIT, PROJECT IMPLEMENTION UNIT (PIU) IN FRONT OF SINGNATURE CITY, SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM COLONY, KUKDA JAGAR CHHINDWARA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - G.A.)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1 dated 10-10-2023 whereby respondent No. 4 has directed M/s. Infratech Civil to depute any other suitable person as Resident Engineer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a contract for supervision and quality control consultancy has been awarded by M.P. Jal Nigam to M/s. Infratech Civil (which is not party to present petition). The present petitioner is admittedly an employee of the said said contractor M/s. Infratech Civil. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of the detailed NIT and as per clause 5 internal page 54 of detailed NIT the duties of resident engineer are defined. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Jal Nigam could not have directed the contractor agency to replace the petitioner as Resident Engineer with some other suitable person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has criticized the said order saying that the petitioner was working to the best of his ability and honesty and was properly discharging the duties assigned to him as Resident Engineer in terms of aforesaid clause 5. Thus the direction by M.P. Jal Nigam to the contractor agency to replace the petitioner is bad in law.

3. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, it is evident that petitioner is an employee of M/s. Infratech Civil which has got a contract for supervision and consultancy of certain works carried by M.P. Jal Nigam which is a Government of M.P. undertaking. The Contractor Agency has deputed the petitioner being the employee of that contractor agency to perform the duties of its resident engineer in relation to the contract awarded to that contractor by M.P. Jal Nigam. The facts of the case clearly shows that there is no privity between the petitioner and M.P. Jal Nigam.

4. M.P. Jal Nigam has found that the petitioner was not discharging Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR duties properly as Resident Engineer and has directed the contractor agency to replace the petitioner by some other suitable engineer as Resident Engineer.

5. Admittedly, this order does not involve any civil consequences to the petitioner. This order does not affect the service condition of the petitioner with his employer i.e.M/s. Infratech Civil, nor this order proposes any recovery or any other penal against the petitioner. The petitioner was merely a representative of his employer M/s. Infratech Civil who has been awarded a contract by M.P. Jal Nigam. M.P. Jal Nigam has directed the contractor to depute some other representative.

6. As the order Annexure P/1 does not entail any civil consequences on the petitioner, no case to entertain the present petition is made out. The admission is declined, petition stands dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR