Dismissed

Pankaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2019CWP/8582/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition challenging the replacement of apprentices upon expiry of their term, the petitioner sought a direction to the State not to appoint the same set of employees. The Court noted that the apprentices had completed their term under the Apprentices Act, 1961, and based on an administrative instruction, held no case for issuance of direction.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for direction not to replace petitioners is dismissed.

Pankaj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP No. 8582 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 8582 of 2019 Date of decision : 05.04.2019

Pankaj and others

......Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶15

Issue notice of motion.

¶16

On asking of the Court, Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall supply copy of the petition to learned State counsel by today itself.

¶17

Prayer in this petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents not to replace the petitioners by same set of employees.

¶18

Petitioners who are Matriculate/10+2 as well as Diploma in ITI are doing apprenticeship in respondent No. 3-department and are being paid stipend according to Apprentices Act, 1961. The details of their appointment is given in para No. 2 of the petition. Now the petitioners are seeking that they be considered for appointment on contract basis at D.C rates after completion of their apprenticeship on the posts on which they are working.

¶19

Learned State counsel at the very outset has referred to relevant Section of Apprentices Act, 1961, which reads as under:-

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2019.04.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No. 8582 of 2019

¶22

¶23

2[(aa)]"apprentice" means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training 13[* * *] in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship;

¶24

[(aaa)"apprenticeship training" means a course of training in any industry or establishment undergone in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship and under prescribed terms and conditions which may be different for different categories of apprentices;]

¶25

Reference has further been made to Annexure P-1 whereby petitioner has been taken on training for specific duration i.e 15.04.2018 to 14.04.2019 and he has to be given stipend @ Rs.6955/- per month.

¶26

Further learned State counsel has informed that instruction dated 25.01.2019 has also been issued by Deputy Apprenticeship Advisor for State Apprenticeship Advisor cum Director General, Skill Development and Industrial Training Department, Haryana, Panchkula wherein it has been advised that since the apprentices already completed apprenticeship training, they are not eligible for re-appointment in the same trade or another trade and hence are not to be considered. The above instruction has been issued for trade apprentices in the year 2019

¶27

Keeping in view the above instructions, the petitioner cannot continue after 14.04.2019.

¶28

No case is made out for issuance of direction to the respondents not to replace the petitioners by same set of employees.

¶29

The petition stands dismissed.

¶30

05.04.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶32

Gaurav Arora 2019.04.11 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Pankaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Kuldip and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Devender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Surender Dangi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bablu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sulekha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sangeeta Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Others