Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046027
CWP-6148-2019 and COCP-1414-2020 2024:PHHC:046027
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(224) CWP-6148-2019(O&M)
Date of Decision : 04.04.2024
Rajender Kumar and others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
(224/2) COCP-1414-2020(O&M)
Rajender Kumar and others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sachin Gupta (Ladwa), Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, CWP-6148-2019 as well as COCP-
1414-2020, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being
decided as both these petitions involve the same question of law on
similar facts.
2. The prayer of the petitioners in the present petitions is that
the petitioners should be allowed to continue in service till they are
replaced by regular selected employees.
3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, the respondents have stated that the petitioners are not the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046027
CWP-6148-2019 and COCP-1414-2020 2024:PHHC:046027
employees of the State but have been appointed through outsourcing
agency i.e. a private contractor and as there is no master and servant
relationship between the petitioners and respondents, no benefit of
continuance in service against the State can be sought. The details of the
Contractor, under whom the petitioners have been appointed, have been
detailed in paragraph 1 of the reply. The said averments have gone un-
rebutted.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The first question, which arise is whether the petitioners,
who are the employees of a private contractor, can approach this Court by
filing the present petitions and the same will be maintainable or not. The
said question has already been answered by this Court while deciding
CWP No. 12274 of 2020 titled as Kumar Saurabh and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others, decided on 30.09.2020. It has already been held
that the employees of the outsourcing agency, have no right to file the
writ petition as the same will not be maintainable as the outsourcing
agency cannot be treated as a State or the instrumentality of the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut
the same but submits that keeping in view the judgment of 05 Judge
Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11299 of 1996 titled as Ravneet Kaur
Vs. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, decided on 06.05.1997,
the writ petition is maintainable wherever, the public functions are
performed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046027
CWP-6148-2019 and COCP-1414-2020 2024:PHHC:046027
7. It may be noticed that the judgment in Ravneet Kaur
(supra), relates to the grant of admission on the basis of the joint entrance
test. The same did not relate to the employment with the private agency
so as to claim benefit against the same. The judgment in Ravneet Kaur
(supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. Keeping in view the above, as per the law settled in Kumar
Saurabh and others (supra), the present CWP-6148-2019 as well as
COCP-1414-2020 are not maintainable and are dismissed as such with
liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of their
grievances before appropriate forum.
9. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, are disposed
of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
April 4th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
