Mohit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6139 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 December, 2025

124          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CWP-37085-2025
                                                  Date of decision: 11.12.2025

Mohit Kumar                                                         ....Petitioner

                                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
             for respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing of the impugned action of respondent No.4, whereby,

the petitioner has been retrenched on 31.03.2025 from the services without

giving any relieving order or any order in writing which is arbitrary and

violating Articles 14, 16 & 311 of the Constitution of India. Further, for

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to

allow the petitioner to join his duty.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

petitioner was appointed as Animal Attendant (Class-IV) on 06.07.2021

through an outsourcing agency. He was later brought under Haryana Kaushal

Rozgar Nigam Limited (in short 'HKRNL') w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and his

deployment was extended up to 31.03.2025. In the meantime, the Haryana

1 of 4

Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 (in short 'the Act') was

enacted providing protection to contractual employees who are similarly

situated. The Government instructions dated 07.08.2024, 27.12.2024 and

15.01.2025 (Annexures P-2, P-4 & P-8, respectively) directed that such

employees need not to be relieved and be adjusted against the vacant posts.

Despite availability of sanctioned posts and clear policy protections, the

petitioner was orally instructed not to mark his presence on 31.03.2025. He

further relies upon the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No.31301 of

2025 titled as 'Subhash Chander and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'

(Annexure P-9) and submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the same

protection as was granted by this Court in the aforesaid case which is ordered to

be heard with another connected matter bearing CWP No.26304 of 2025 and all

these cases are pending.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that

petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he does not fulfil the minimum tenure

of 05 years on contractual basis to HKRNL as such, his case is not covered or

protected under the Act and further, the case of the petitioner is squarely

covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.26453 of 2025

titled as 'Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'

decided on 08.09.2025 declining the relief to the petitioners therein. The

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2995 of 2025 on 28.10.2025 has not

interfered with the order passed by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar's case (supra).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of

the record, it transpires that the petitioner has not completed 05 years of service

2 of 4

as he was only appointed on 06.07.2021 through an outsourcing agency. He

was later brought under the HKRNL w.e.f. 01.04.2022, as such, total length of

service of the petitioner is not 05 years as required under Section 3 of the Act.

This Court in Sanjeev Kumar's case (supra) has observed as under:-

'7. The relevant part of the Haryana Contractual Employees Security Services Act 2024 are reproduced below,

"3. The eligible contractual employee shall be an employee who.-

(i) (a) has been engaged on contract by the Government Organization and is in the service of such Government Organization on the appointed date and receiving remuneration upto Rs. 50,000/-

per month; or

(b) is deployed by the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam under the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022 and is in the service of a Government Organization on the appointed date;

(ii) has completed at least five years service in the Government Organization on full time basis as on the appointed date.

Explanation 1.- The period of service shall be considered as the period for which remuneration was made, directly or indirectly, by the Government Organization to the eligible contractual employee and shall include the period of any leave approved by the competent authority."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out whether the case of the petitioners is covered under any policy of the State of Haryana or respondents No. 4 and 6, in support of their claim in the present petition. The petitioners cannot claim extension as they do not fulfill the minimum tenure of 5 years before the cutoff date to be considered as an eligible contractual employee. As such, they cannot claim it as a vested right.

9. In view of the discussions above, the present petition is dismissed."

3 of 4

5. As such, in view of the discussion above, the present writ petition

is hereby dismissed in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sanjeev

Kumar's case (supra).

                                              (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                    JUDGE
11.12.2025
Neha


             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                     4 of 4