Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyavir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047068-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120 2024:PHHC:047068-DB
LPA-876-2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 08.04.2024
Satbir Singh @ Satyavir Singh .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
CM-2138-CWP-2024
1. Application for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is
allowed, in view of averments made in the application supported by affidavit of
the appellant.
2. Delay condoned.
3. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-876-2024
4. Consideration in the present letters patent appeal, which has been
filed by one of the writ petitioners out of the 14 who had approached the learned
Single Judge, is to the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed in CWP-13094-2019.
The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that the employer was a private entity
and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition in view of the law settled in CWP-
12274-2020, Kumar Saurabh and others vs. State of Haryana and others,
decided on 30.09.2020. Liberty was given to the present appellant and his co-writ
petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Forum for the redressal of
their grievance including filing a suit before the Civil Court.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047068-DB
LPA-876-2024 (O & M) -2- 2024:PHHC:047068-DB
5. The relief as such sought in the writ petition was that the petitioners
be reinstated/allowed to work on the posts they were employed in, in lieu of the
junior daily workers who were working on their posts or to absorb the petitioners
in the job/vacancies lying vacant in Class-IV posts in the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Mahendergarh. The said appointments had been made through
respondent No.3 i.e. service provider namely Army Enterprises. It is the own case
of the appellant that he was working since 14.02.2012 (Annexure P-3). A perusal
of the said letter would go on to show that the appellant was appointed as Peon on
a contractual post for a period of six months and was asked to report in the office
of Tehsildar, Mahendergarh.
6. In the writ petition itself, it has been pleaded that the services were
terminated orally, in haste and fresh daily wagers or juniors to the appellant had
been appointed while referring to the letter dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure P-7). A
perusal of the same would go on to show apparently that the contractual
employees, upon arrival of regular candidates, had been relieved. The Department
has issued instructions that where vacant posts were available, the contractual
persons were to be re-engaged in case they were relieved to avoid disruption of
services.
7. In the reply to the writ petition also, it has been submitted that due to
induction of regular Group-D employees on the posts of Peons, the services of the
appellants could not be extended beyond 04.03.2019 as they were replaced by
regular employees. This was done in consonance with the instructions issued by
the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana.
8. The judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in Kumar
Saurabh's case (supra) was upheld in LPA-81-2021 by the co-ordinate Bench on
23.09.2021 wherein, it was held that the contractual employees have no right to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047068-DB
LPA-876-2024 (O & M) -3- 2024:PHHC:047068-DB
have their contract renewed from time to time while also placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs.
Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in
LPA-81-2021 reads thus:-
"As has already been noticed above, the appellants
have failed to show that they were under the direct
employment of respondents. Besides, this it appears on the
record that actually the appellants were hired by private
service provider. So, there is no binding contract between the
respondents and the appellants. That being so, the learned
Single Judge rightly observed that the writ petition is not
maintainable against respondents. We are of the view that the
judicial pronouncements referred by the counsel for the
appellants with regard to maintainability of the writ petition
are not of any help to the appellants. The judgments in K.K.
Saksena; Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board and
Ravneet Kaur's case were delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and High Court in totally different context and are not
relating to employment of outsourced employees. The reliance
placed by the appellants in Narinder Singh Ahuja's case is
also misplaced as in the said case, petitioners were aggrieved
by non-extension of their contractual appointment. It is not out
of place to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yogesh
Mahajan vs. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, SLP Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012 decided on
31.01.2018 has clearly observed that it is settled law that no
contract employee has a right to have his or her contract
renewed from time to time. It is also to be noted that Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4)
SCC 1, deprecated the tendency of the Government and its
departments regarding all types of irregular appointments
being made by them without following the due procedure
under the rules.
In the light of the above, we do not find it a fit case to
interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047068-DB
LPA-876-2024 (O & M) -4- 2024:PHHC:047068-DB
Judge and letter (Annexure P-5). Consequently, the appeal is
hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending application
(if any), also shall stands disposed of."
9. Keeping in view the above, we do not find any reasonable ground as
such to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, more so, keeping in
view that liberty has been given to the appellant to avail his alternative remedy in
accordance with law also, since disputed questions as such would arise which
would have to be decided by calling upon the record and examining whether there
was any violation of any statutory provisions keeping in view the length of service
and also being the principal employer.
10. Accordingly, the present letters patent appeal stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
08.04.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
