Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054917-DB
{ 2024:PHHC:054917-DB}
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-26387-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:23.04.2024
BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ........Petitioners
V/s.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA.
Present Mr.Amit Kaith, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners by way of this Writ Petition have challenged the
notification dated 26.10.2023 issued by the Haryana Government, Human
Resources Department laying down the amendment in the Deployment of
Contractual Persons Policy, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy of
2022") applicable in all the Departments, Boards, Corporations, Public
Sectors Undertakings, Missions, Authorities to deploy manpower for any Job
Role whether listed or not in the Annexures of Nigam Wage Rates but is of
the Level I to Level III.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the said
amendment in the Policy of 2022, the title of the Job Role speaks about
different posts, but does not mention the post of Conductors and hence, they
are aggrieved as they had worked as Conductors during the strike period for
18 days and claims that they have a right to be continued as Conductors on
contract basis.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054917-DB
{ 2024:PHHC:054917-DB}
CWP-26387-2023 (O&M)
3. We find that the said Policy of 2022, as issued by the
Government of Haryana, has not been made applicable to following persons:-
(i) "the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) made by an
organization through tender on contract basis, e.g.,
cleaning of premises, housekeeping services, without any
reference of number of manpower. Such contracts shall
be decided by the Organization concerned at its own level
as before. However, this Policy shall be applicable if the
number of personnel of the Level of I, II or III are
mentioned for any kind of service;
(ii) the manpower engaged for skilled/highly skilled and/or
administrative job roles above level-III;
(iii) the contractual persons deployed by an Organization
operating the projects/schemes under projects guidelines,
e.g., NHM, HRDA etc;
(iv) Persons deployed through HARTRON against a
sanctioned post to be either ported to HKRNL or such
deployments to cease after an informed time limit.
(v) Persons engaged under Outsourcing Policy Part-ll,
subject to directions of Government issued from time to
time regarding porting.
(vi) part time contractual workers like Anganwadi worker,
part time water pump operator etc.;
(vii) the persons deployed under a Centrally sponsored
Scheme;
(viii) retired employees whose appointment and remuneration
is governed by Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016; and
(ix) interns/apprentices and Young Professionals.
(x) Manpower engaged on honorarium basis/per hour basis
to be exempted from deployments through HKRNL.
(xi) For these cases, relevant existing Service
Byelaws/Rules/Regulations/Project
guidelines/Instructions of the Government of Haryana
shall be applicable."
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054917-DB
{ 2024:PHHC:054917-DB}
CWP-26387-2023 (O&M)
Thus, for the said persons, relevant Service Bye Laws, Rules and
Regulations have been made applicable.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
wholly misconceived that the petitioners have right to be engaged in terms of
the Policy of 2020 on contract basis. Even otherwise, no person has a right to
employment and the only right available is for consideration for employment.
We find that the petitioners had also applied but were not selected for the
post on contractual basis. After having failed to be selected, they have
challenged the Policy itself which cannot be allowed.
5. This Court in LPA-1229-2021 titled as Radhe Shyam and
Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others examined the judgment passed by
the learned Single Bench while upholding its decision not to continue the
Conductors and Drivers who had been appointed on contract basis during the
strike period, held as under:-
"We are of the considered opinion that no fault can be
found as such in the order of the learned Single Judge. A writ of
mandamus can be issued only where there is a legal right as
such stemming from a Statute/Policy and from the facts and
circumstances in the present litigation, nothing could be
demonstrated that one existed. The petitioners themselves were
drivers appointed on contractual basis during the strike period.
On account of the strike in the Haryana Roadways for 18 days
from 16.10.2018 as per their chart in Para No.2 itself, their
services were terminated from 04.11.2018 onwards. Thus
apparently, they only served as contractual employees for a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054917-DB
{ 2024:PHHC:054917-DB}
CWP-26387-2023 (O&M)
period of around two weeks and on account of that are seeking
enforcement of a right for future employment, which a workman
would also not get until he completes 240 days in the preceding
year.
In such circumstances, we feel that in the absence of any
legal right as such, the writ petitioners were basing their claim
on a very feeble argument which has been rightly rejected. Thus,
no case is made out for interference in the order dated
11.02.2019 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.
28691 of 2018 and the present appeals stand dismissed."
6. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The
Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
7. All pending application stands dismissed accordingly.
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
JUDGE
April 23, 2024 [SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
Ess Kay
JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
