The court will not interfere with a policy decision to change the mode of execution of a government scheme, but it can direct the State to ensure the absorption of willing contractual employees and maintain pay protection under the new arrangement.

Order

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of termination of the petitioners’ services by the different Outsourcing Agency through whom their services were taken by respondents-Government Authorities.

2. The common facts in the present writ petitions disclosed that the petitioners were working as Lab Technicians by indirect contract as their services were sponsored by manpower agency. Such a scheme was implemented in the background that the infrastructure for lab was previously created by the Government and only services of technicians were obtained through manpower agency. The scheme, under which they were working, has been modified in the format of implementation. Now the Government has taken a decision as a policy measure that the services as well as the infrastructure shall be handling by way of one and same and there is no receipt of individual manpower services through outsourcing agency as was done under the old mode of execution of this scheme. The scheme, which was existing was now changed into with a different name. According to the new scheme and policy, the Government has selected a particular lab and that lab required to offer both infrastructure services as well as the manpower services. There is no hiring of any individual manpower services by the Government as was done earlier. As a consequence of change of mode of execution of the scheme, now the services of the petitioners have been terminated by the agency under whom the petitioners were working.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the name of change of execution of the scheme, the services of the petitioners should not have been terminated and their services should have been continued as they were recruited to the sanctioned post under the scheme though the scheme was changed, but change in the mode of execution of the scheme do not entail the Authorities to put to an end to their services and deprive them from benefits, which are extended when an employee works under direct or indirect contract. It is also his submission that even if the mode of scheme is changed, the petitioners cannot be deprived of rendering services as they have sufficient experience in the service.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the old scheme was that the Government used to take care of infrastructure for creation of lab and the manpower services were arranged through manpower agency. Now the new scheme has been adopted, whereunder the infrastructure as well the manpower services to maintain the lab has been assigned to a recognized lab. As per the new scheme, the labs were also selected to offer both infrastructure as well as the manpower services.

5. The petitioners’ claim to continue could have been accepted had there been any continuation of receiving services of manpower through manpower agency, but the supply of manpower agency is no more and now both the services are merged into one and the lab is offerring the services under the new scheme without any separate supply of manpower to carry out the test. Therefore, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to continue to old mode of scheme, which will frustrate the very purpose of the new scheme and compels the Government to create the infrastructure itself instead of giving the such a position to the private lab.

6. This Court in number of cases has been protecting the interest of an employees working under the manpower agency to continue such services, even if there wa