Rajan And Anr vs Pankaj Agarwal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 15336 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117343




COCP-2741-2023 (O&M)                                                               -1-
                                               [Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:117343]

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                        COCP-2741-2023 (O&M)
                                                       Date of decision: 06.09.2023

Rajan and another                                                         ...Petitioners

                                            Versus

Pankaj Agarwal and another                                              ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-    Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate and
             Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. P. K. Longia, DAG, Haryana.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioners are alleging violation of the order dated

28.05.2019, passed by this Court in CWP-14455-2019, which reads as

under:

"Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 1 and 2 are working as Chownkidar since 13.06.2014 and 01.08.2014 respectively with Food Supply Corporation through respondent No. 4. Petitioners are now seeking directions to the respondents not to dispense with their services.

Learned counsel is relying upon judgment passed by this Court in a case of Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2017 (1) SCT 197 wherein it has been held that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another similar arrangement.

Notice of motion for 29.10.2019.

In the meantime, petitioners shall not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, subject to the condition that their work and conduct is satisfactory."

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117343

COCP-2741-2023 (O&M) -2-

[Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:117343]

Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that services of

the petitioners were dispensed with as their work and conduct was not found

satisfactory. It is further submitted that the petitioners were transferred to

some other place, where both of them did not join, therefore, there is no

violation of the aforesaid order.

In view of the above, the present petition is rendered

infructuous.

Rule stands discharged.

The petitioner are granted liberty to avail the alternative

remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised.

06.09.2023                                    (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No
                Whether reportable                              Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117343

2 of 2