Darshana vs State Of Haryana And Others

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7431 P&H
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Darshana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047584




CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M)                             2024:PHHC:047584
                                         1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

(218)                                         CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision : 08.04.2024

Darshana
                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                                ...Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Aanand K. Maurya, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

            ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that she should be allowed to continue in service and further her services should be regularized.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection that the petitioner was appointed through an outsourcing agency and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the Government. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed through the outsourcing agency, namely, Sharp Global Group and the petitioner is only the employee of the said private agency and the present petition is not maintainable keeping in view the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 12274 of 2020 titled as 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-04-2024 01:39:42 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047584 CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:047584 2 Kumar Saurabh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not being able to rebut the fact that keeping in view the judgment of Kumar Saurabh (supra), the writ petition against the State is not maintainable, especially when, the appointment of the petitioner was through private outsourcing agency and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitions may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner.

5. Ordered accordingly.

Any miscellaneous application, if pending, stands disposed of.

April 8th, 2024                                (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                                 JUDGE

               Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

               Whether reportable     : Yes/No




                                      2 of 2
                  ::: Downloaded on - 10-04-2024 01:39:43 :::