Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akshay vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 September, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114959
CWP-2200-2021 -1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2200-2021
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
AKSHAY
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and
Ms. Priya Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner as Security Guard in the
respondent-Department under outsourcing policy as the petitioner has been
relieved from duty without any reason or notice with a further prayer to direct
the respondents not to replace the petitioner with any other employee under
outsourcing policy.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner today. Same was the
position on the last two dates of hearing as well.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114959
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the present
writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is seeking
reinstatement as a Security Guard under outsourcing policy through respondent
No.3-Outsourcing Agency and the present writ petition is not maintainable
against the aforesaid Outsourcing Agency and even otherwise also, so far as
respondent No.2 is concerned, there is no privity of contract between the
petitioner and respondent No.2. He referred to a Coordinate Bench judgments
of this Court in Karan Singh versus State of Haryana and others,
CWP-1481-2022, decided on 12.05.2022 and Anmol Garg and another versus
State of Punjab and others, CWP-29655-2018, decided on 28.11.2018, which
was upheld in LPA as well in this regard.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today and he has
been repeatedly not appearing before the Court and therefore, the present case is
being heard even in his absence because of his repeated absence.
4. The prayer in the present writ petition is for seeking reinstatement
as a Security Guard under outsourcing policy through respondent No.3-
Outsourcing Agency. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anmol Garg's case
(supra) has dealt with the aforesaid proposition of law and held that the writ
petition would not be maintainable against the Outsourcing Agency. The
aforesaid judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in
LPA-1910-2018 decided on 10.12.2018. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as under:-
"Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was
an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114959
license under the contract to supply manpower held there
was no privity of contract between the appellant and the
employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The
principle being canvassed before us applies only in case
there is a privity of contract between the employee and the
employer. In the case in hand, the appellant was an
employee of the service provider. The benefit of the said
principle is not liable to be extended to her and, thus, we do
not find any illegality committed by learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition."
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition being devoid of any
merit, is hereby dismissed.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
