Sarwar Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2940 P&H

     127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH



                                                           CWP-20800-2021
                                                 Date of Decision: 11.10.2021


SARWAR KUMAR                                                ...Petitioner

                                        Versus


STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA


Present :    Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.

             (Presence marked through Video Conference)

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Impugned herein is an order dated 20.09.2021, vide which, the

services of the petitioner, working on the post of Carpenter, have been

terminated inter alia stating that the same are no longer required.

2. On advance service, learned State counsel appears and opposes

issuance of notice of motion in the petition.

3. He submits that the petitioner had earlier approached the labour

Court against termination of his services in the year 2006 and vide an award

rendered therein, he was directed to be re-instated with continuity in services

and 50% back wages. Aggrieved, the State filed a Writ Petition before this

Court bearing CWP-7581-2008, which was allowed and the Labour Court

award was set aside in totality.

1 of 3

4. Learned State counsel further submits that the SLP filed against

the judgment of the High Court was though initially allowed but Civil

Appeal No.7365 of 2013, arising therefrom, was finally dismissed by the

Apex Court.

5. Net result in my view is, that the judgment rendered by this

Court setting aside the Labour Court award has since attained finality, the

petitioner has to naturally bear the consequences thereof.

6. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner does not

controvert the previous round of litigation and the outcome thereof. He,

however, argues that since the petitioner was allowed to continue for about a

year even after the Apex Court had dismissed his appeal, he ought to be

allowed to continue further in service, regardless of the outcome of previous

round of litigation. He submits that currently there is a sanctioned post of

Carpenter lying vacant and if, the department so wishes, the petitioner can

still be accommodated by taking a fresh look at the matter without being

influenced by the previous round of litigation.

7. After having heard the rival contentions, this Court refrains to

interfere in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Concededly, the petitioner

having lost his claim on the post of Carpenter right up to Supreme Court is

trying to now seek same benefit indirectly, which has directly been denied to

him.

8. Dismissed.

9. However, in case, the department, on its own volition, wishes to

consider the claim of the petitioner purely on other considerations i.e. the

requirement of his services on the vacant post and/or by considering him as a

fresh candidate, the department is at liberty to do so, in accordance with law

2 of 3

and the dismissal of his earlier claim would not non-suit him to compete

afresh.

10. Dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

October 11, 2021                                    (ARUN MONGA)
gurpreet                                                JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No

Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                               3 of 3