Outsourced employees lack direct employer-employee relationship with principal employers and cannot legally claim promotions or upgraded status.

The petitioners were sponsored by the Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL) for contractual engagement as Stenographers in the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan in 2012 and 2014.

On February 20, 2021, the then Chief General Manager of the Jal Sansthan issued an order upgrading their status to "Senior Personal Assistant".

On April 8, 2026, the Jal Sansthan issued a communication to the outsourcing agency (UPNL) stating that the competent authority had decided to restore the original designations of outsourced employees as mentioned at the time of their initial sponsorship.

The petitioners challenged this communication, seeking to maintain their upgraded status.

1. Whether outsourced contractual employees acquire a legal status or right to promotion equivalent to regular state employees.

2. Whether the unilateral change of designation by an officer without the authority of law creates a vested right in favor of an outsourced employee.

3. Whether the restoration of the original designation violates Clause 3(6) of the Government Order dated February 3, 2026.

Outsourced or contract employees do not automatically acquire the status of regular State employees, and long-term service does not ipso facto establish a direct employer-employee relationship with the State.

Promotion is not a right available to outsourced staff, as they are engaged through a third-party agency (UPNL) often against non-sanctioned posts.

Clause 3(6) of the Government Order dated February 3, 2026, which stipulates that even if duties are changed, outsourced employees are entitled to benefits only for the post against which they were initially engaged.

The Court reasoned that there is no direct master-servant relationship between the petitioners and Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, as the petitioners remain employees of the outsourcing agency, UPNL.

The then Chief General Manager acted without the authority of law by "promoting" or "upgrading" the petitioners, as the power to change designation or status does not exist for outsourced personnel who are expected to perform multifarious duties akin to multitasking staff.

The petitioners sought to maintain the higher designation primarily to lay a foundation for future regularization on a promotional post (Senior Personal Assistant) rather than the entry-level post (Stenographer).

Since the Government Order dated February 3, 2026, explicitly limits benefits to the original post of engagement, the restoration of the "Stenographer" designation does not cause legal prejudice or violate the petitioners' rights.

The Court answered that outsourced employees have no right to claim promotion and that the previous order upgrading their status was an anomaly created without legal authority, which the competent authority was justified in correcting.

The impugned communication dated April 8, 2026, was upheld as it merely restored the petitioners to their original sponsored status as Stenographers. No order as to costs.