Dismissed

Naresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Apr 2013CWP/7987/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Civil Writ petition challenged the termination of service agreement and alleged replacement of sweepers/ward servants, allowing replacement only through regular selection and rejecting the petition on being based on unsubstantiated apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for being not maintainable as it was based on unsubstantiated apprehension.

Naresh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 7987 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7987 of 2013 Date of decision:12.04.2013

¶5

Naresh Kumar & others

¶6

...... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana & others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioners have worked on Class IV posts of Sweepers/Ward Servants on DC rates at the Trauma Centre, Yamuna Nagar. Such contractual service was rendered in pursuance to a service agreement having been executed between the petitioners with the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Such service agreement came to an end on 31.03.2013.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed raising a grievance that the service agreement that the petitioners had entered into has not been renewed and the respondents would now be proceeding to replace them with another set of contractual employees.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length.

¶16

It is now well settled that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another similar arrangement. It is always open

¶17

CWP No. 7987 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

however for the State Government to fill up the posts through a regular process of selection. No suggestive material/document has been placed on record, wherefrom it can be inferred that the petitioners would now be replaced by another set of contractual employees. The present writ petition has been filed merely on an apprehension and which in the light of the pleadings on record, is not substantiated. The writ petition accordingly, is held to be not even maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

It is however clarified that it shall always be open for the respondents to approach the Court afresh as and when any specific order detrimental to their interest is passed or any action is initiated by the respondents so as to replace them by another set of contractual employees.

¶21

The civil writ petition accordingly is dismissed.

¶22

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶23

April 12, 2013 harjeet

Naresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbachan Singh and Anr.. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Geeta Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India

Tarsem Lal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs Secretary to the Govt. , Deptt. of Rural Dev. and Panchayat and Ors.