Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

“1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) whereby his request for repatriation to his Parent Department has been rejected.

¶15

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 24.08.2017. He pursuant to advertisement No.3/2023 applied for the post of Assistant Lineman (for short ‘ALM’) in HVPNL. The application was filed through proper channel. He came to be selected as ALM. He submitted his technical resignation which was accepted by his Parent Department on 08.02.2024. He joined HVPNL on 09.02.2024. HVPNL rejected his request of pay protection and continuity of service. He requested his Parent Department to permit him to rejoin, however, his request came to be rejected vide order dated 11.04.2025. The request has been rejected on the

¶16

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.05 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶17

CWP-20726-2025

¶18

-2-

¶19

ground that petitioner has failed to comply with conditions of Rule 29 of Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016.

¶20

3. Learned State counsel seeks time to clarify how Rule 29 of Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 is applicable to petitioner.

¶21

4. Adjourned to 01.08.2025.”

¶22

The aforesaid order was followed by order dated 01.08.2025 which is reproduced as under: -

¶23

“1. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was not a confirmed employee on the date he was relieved to join Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited as Assistant Lineman. As the petitioner was not a confirmed employee, he did not possess lien on the post of Constable. In the absence of lien, there was no reason to permit him to rejoin.

¶24

2. Learned State counsel is hereby directed to produce copy of confirmation order, if any, passed in the case of Constables who joined service along with the petitioner in 2017.

¶25

3. Adjourned to 05.08.2025. ”

¶26

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, fairly concedes that no confirmation order, in the case of Constables who joined service along with the petitioner in 2017, has been passed.

¶27

From the perusal of appointment letter, it is evident that no period of probation was prescribed, however, under Rule 10 of Haryana Police (Non-Gazetted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017 (for short ‘ 2017 Rules ’) probation period has been prescribed. Rule 10(3) of 2017 Rules provides that probation period shall not exceed four years. On the expiry of maximum period, employee either be confirmed or his probation period be

¶28

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.05 16:23declared as completed satisfactorily or be discharged from service. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶29

CWP-20726-2025

¶30

-3-

¶31

In the instant case, the State has conceded that no confirmation order was passed with respect to any Constable appointed in 2017. The State counsel is unable to refute that in such circumstances particularly Rule 10(3) of 2017 Rules, the petitioner was deemed to be confirmed, in any eventuality, on completion of four years service because his service was never found dissatisfactory.

¶32

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby set aside. Let the needful be done within 2 months from today.

¶33

The respondent shall consider period of service rendered by the petitioner with Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited in accordance with law.

¶34

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶35

05.08.2025

¶36

Mohit Kumar

¶37

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

¶38

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.05 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms a S Construction Vs Union of India Others

M/S Express Housekeeper Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Saffron Infradevelopers Private Limited and Others

M/S Abw Suncity Vs Sudhir Kumar

Avtar Singh Vs Pu Chandigarh

M/S Jain Brothers Vs M/S Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

Vikas Kumar and Others Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Others