Single judge disposed of an RCNP regarding termination of a contractual employee. Court removed apprehension of replacement via outsourcing and directed no replacement, barring misconduct.
Directed respondents not to replace petitioner with another contractual employee; misconduct termination to be via enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CWP No.21139 of 2018 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21139 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.08.2019
Arun Garg
...Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Present: Mr. Arun Garg, petitioner in person.
None for respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
This Court on 23.08.2018 by noticing contention of petitioner passed following order:-
“Grievance of the petitioner is that he is working on contract basis on the post of Data Entry Operation since 2011 and respondents are in the process of replacing him by engaging contractual employee through outsourcing agency. Services of the petitioner have been terminated vide office order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-16 colly).
Notice of motion for 18.02.2019.
Operation of the impugned orders dated 13.08.2018 and 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-16) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Assistant from Haryana Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation has appeared in person and stated that petitioner is still working and has not been terminated as Department is not contemplating to replace petitioner with another of contractual employees except by regular process.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.21139 of 2018 (O&M)
-2-
In such circumstances, in my view, apprehension expressed by petitioner is far fetched. Writ petition is disposed of with direction that respondents will not replace petitioner with another set of contractual employees with rider that in case of any misconduct can be terminated by holding an enquiry in compliance of natural justice. It will also not preclude respondents to fill up posts through regular selection process.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| August 14, 2019 | ||
| Pankaj* | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes | |
| Whether reportable | No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.08.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's apprehension regarding termination for outsourcing is justified.
Whether the State can replace the petitioner with a contractual employee through an outsourcing agency.
Arun Garg
State of Haryana and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
