Darshana vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7431 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Darshana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047584




CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M)                             2024:PHHC:047584
                                         1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

(218)                                         CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision : 08.04.2024

Darshana
                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                                ...Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Aanand K. Maurya, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

            ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that she

should be allowed to continue in service and further her services should

be regularized.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an

objection that the petitioner was appointed through an outsourcing agency

and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and

the Government. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner was appointed through the outsourcing agency, namely, Sharp

Global Group and the petitioner is only the employee of the said private

agency and the present petition is not maintainable keeping in view the

judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 12274 of 2020 titled as

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047584

CWP No. 14838 of 2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:047584

Kumar Saurabh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided

on 30.09.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not being able to rebut

the fact that keeping in view the judgment of Kumar Saurabh (supra),

the writ petition against the State is not maintainable, especially when, the

appointment of the petitioner was through private outsourcing agency and

there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

petitions may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further

with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal

of the grievance of the petitioner.

5. Ordered accordingly.

Any miscellaneous application, if pending, stands disposed

of.

April 8th, 2024                                (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                                 JUDGE

               Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

               Whether reportable     : Yes/No




                                      2 of 2