Haryana Seeds Development ... vs Ankush Mehla And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17449 P&H

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                                              LPA-229-2020 (O&M)
                                              Decided on: 21.12.2022


Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Panchkula ......Appellant(s)


                                     Versus

Ankush Mehla & another                                     ......Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH

Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) :-

CM-619-LPA-2020

Application for condonation of delay of 96 days in refiling

the present appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the

application, duly supported by affidavit of Clerk of the counsel. Delay of

96 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM-620-LPA-2020

Application for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the

present appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the

application, duly supported by affidavit of the official and in view of the

fact that despite service having been effected on 12.07.2022, no reply has

been filed and neither there was no appearance on behalf of the

respondents on the said date or today. Delay of 83 days in filing the

appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

1 of 4

LPA-229-2020 (O&M)

The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-11611-2018 titled Ankush

Mehla Vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation & another, decided

on 30.04.2019. The learned Single Judge had applied the judgment of the

Apex Court passed in Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

others, 2007 (13) SCC 292 and directed that the writ petitioner could not

be replaced by another set of contractual employee and can be replaced

only on joining of a regularly selected candidate.

The argument raised by counsel for the Corporation is that it

was the pleaded case of the writ petitioner that he was working through the

Labour Contractor w.e.f. 07.03.2016 and it is thus submitted that he was

never the employee of the Corporation and the principle in Hargurpratap

Singh (supra) could not have been incorporated to protect the employee of

the contractor.

A perusal of the writ petition would also go on to show that

the appointment of the writ petitioner was as a Salesman and as per the

experience certificate issued by the Labour Contractor, he had worked on

monthly basis at DC rate for Rs.10,440/- per month from 07.03.2016 to

03.02.2017 and from 15.02.2017 till 21.03.2017 when certificate had been

issued. It is thus apparent that the writ petitioner was never an employee

of the Corporation. By virtue of the order of the learned Single Judge the

Corporation had been asked to continue with the employee of the Labour

Contractor till the joining of the regularly selected candidate. A perusal of

the writ petition would also go on to show that a Walk-in-interview was

invited as per the State Government Outsourcing policy dated 06.04.2015

2 of 4

for various posts including 45 posts of Salesman in March, 2017. As per

the representation filed, he was relieved on 01.02.2018 and some other

person had been arranged to join on DC rates.

The stand of the Corporation in the written statement was that

the employer-contractor, Hawa Singh had not been impleaded though

service of the writ petitioner was alleged to have been terminated by the

said person and that he was not the employee of the Corporation and the

writ petition was not maintainable. Specific plea was taken that the writ

petitioner was never appointed by the Corporation and nothing was

brought on record to show that the appointment is by the Corporation.

Rather it was the case of the writ petitioner himself that he was the

employee of the Labour Contractor.

In such circumstances, the directions passed by the learned

Single Judge to apply the judgment in Hargurpratap Singh (supra) is not

justified. The said case pertained to persons who had been employed on

ad-hoc basis in several colleges in the State of Punjab who were allowed

to be continued in service on minimum of the pay-scale till regular

appointments were made. Keeping in view the policy of the State itself,

the order passed by this Court was upheld on account of the fact that one

ad-hoc arrangement could not be replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement

and it was not useful for the colleges to appoint persons afresh. In such

circumstances, directions had been issued and protection was granted that

they would continue in service on the minimum of the pay-scale.

Thus, we are of the considered opinion that by virtue of the

impugned order, the Corporation has been foisted with a person who was

not its employee. The impugned order was also stayed on 18.02.2020 and

3 of 4

apparently on account of the fact that the service of the employee had

already been dispensed with on 01.02.2018, he has not put in appearance

to contest the present appeal. In such circumstances, the order dated

30.04.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and the

same is accordingly set aside.

The present appeal is allowed in the above-stated terms.

                                                (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                        JUDGE


21.12.2022                                          (GURBIR SINGH)
sailesh                                                JUDGE

    Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes
    Whether Reportable :                  Yes




                                 4 of 4