Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB
LPA-1637-2024 (O&M) 1
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-1637-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2024
Rajender Kumar and others
......Appellants
V/s
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar Mehra, Advocate and
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocat
for the appellants.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
****
DEEPAK SIBAL J. (ORAL)
1. The present intra Court appeal is directed against judgment dated 04.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition through which they had sought issuance of directions to permit them to continue to serve the Haryana Roadways as Sweepers.
2. A few relevant facts may be noticed.
3. The Haryana Roadways, Kaithal Depot, engaged M/s Krishan Management Agency (for short - the Agency) to provide manpower to serve as Sweepers/Peons at the Depot. As per the contract, the Agency provided the agreed manpower which included the appellants. After the appellants had put in service for 3 to 10 years, an order dated 28.02.2019 was passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal informing all concerned that the contract of the Agency had come to an end on 28.02.2019 and therefore, a 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 07:44:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB LPA-1637-2024 (O&M) 2 fresh contract for providing manpower had now been entered into with the Swami Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Limited, Gohana (for short - the Society). The appellants feared that they would be now be relieved and therefore, knocked the doors of this Court through filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to challenge therein order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal. A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the appellants were contract labourers and therefore, their cause, if any, was against the contractor and since their contractor did not fall under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. Such judgment of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge through the instant intra Court appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. In pursuance to an agreement, the Agency was supplying manpower to the Haryana Roadways which included the appellants. The contract of the Haryana Roadways with the Agency came to an end on 28.02.2019. Therefore, for providing manpower, after a fresh tendering process, another contractor was engaged by the Haryana Roadways, Kaithal. The appellants were working in the Kaithal Depot of Haryana Roadways as Sweepers/Peons and that their services had been provided through the contractor whose contract had come to an end. They feared that they shall now lose their jobs. Therefore, they knocked the doors of this Court through filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking therein 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 07:44:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153329-DB LPA-1637-2024 (O&M) 3 to challenge the action of the Haryana Roadways of switching over from one contractor to the other.
6. In the above facts, we are of the opinion that the appellants would had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Haryana Roadways bringing to the notice of its officers that from 01.03.2019 onwards a new contractor would be providing manpower. It is the appellants' contractor who could be aggrieved by the letter/order dated 28.02.2019, impugned by the appellants through their writ petition. The grievance of the appellants, if any, would be against their contractor for which their remedy would not lie under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
7. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the instant appeal.
Dismissed.
8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 21.11.2024 JUDGE Sapna Adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 07:44:32 :::