Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kishan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054798
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:054798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
225 CWP-31143-2019 (O&M)
Decided on :23.04.2024
KISHAN LAL .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Shubhkarman Singh Gill, Advocate for
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
02.08.2019 (Anneuxre P-9) by which, the services of the petitioner have
been dispensed with by passing an order simplicitor.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing
the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-9), in case there was any
miss in discharge of the service or misconduct on part of the petitioner, the
respondents were required to hold an enquiry to prove the said allegations
alleged against him hence, the impugned order which has been passed by the
authority concerned without holding any enquiry is liable to be set-aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that the petitioner was appointed as multi purpose worker on contractual
basis dated 04.03.2010 and copy of appointment letter is appended as
Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as
per Clause 7 of the appointment letter dated 04.03.2010 (Annexure P-1), in
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054798
CWP-31143-2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054798
case, the work and conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory or he is found
guilty in any coordination or any misconduct is committed by him the
service of the petitioner can be terminated without giving him any prior
notice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as
petitioner was working on part time basis on the said post he did not have
any right to hold the post so as to claim the privileges of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even
otherwise the question of law as raised in the present petition that whether
the services of an employee can be dispensed with as per the terms and
conditions of the appointment order has been settled by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court by passing judgment in CWP-3266-2017 titled as
Madhvi Lochab v. State of Haryana and others' decided on 03.02.2022,
which judgment has already been upheld in LPA No. 1011-2022, titled as
Madhvi Lochab v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 05.03.2024.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. It may be noticed that once the petitioner has been appointed as
multi purpose worker on temporary basis, he does not have any right to hold
the said post. The privileges given under Article 311 of the Constitution of
India are only for the regular employees. As per the settled principle of law
in Madhvi Lochab' s case (Supra), the action can be taken by an employer
keeping in view the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and it is
a conceded position that the services of the petitioner can be dispensed with
keeping in view the condition No. 7 of his appointment letter dated
04.03.2010 (Annexure P-1). That being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054798
CWP-31143-2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054798
to argue that there should be an enquiry to prove the misconduct before
dispensing the services of the petitioner.
8. Even otherwise also, the same question of law whether the
enquiry is must for dispensing of the services of the temporary employee or
the same can be dispensed with as per the terms and conditions of the
appointment order has been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Madhvi Lochab's case (Supra) which judgment has already been uphled
in LPA No. 1011-2022, titled as Madhvi Lochab v. State of Haryana and
others, decided on 05.03.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the
said contention, hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case recorded herein above question of law is covered against the
petitioner, hence, no ground is made out for interference in the present
petition and the same stands dismissed.
10. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
23.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
