Manoj Kumar Vs Amit Sharma

“Inter alia contends t h at the petitioners are working from 26.08.2014 (Annexure P -1) on the post of Peon and 22.08.2015 (Annexure P-2 ) on the post of Driver, respectively. On account of letter dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure P-5), their servi c es have been terminated on 07.11.2017 (Annexure P-6).

¶16

Reference is made to p endency of CWP No.26146 of 2017 'Virender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others' , pending for 12.02.2018 a n d the interim order dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure P-12) p assed therein. Notice of motion for 1 2 .02.2018. In the meantime, t h e petitioners shall not be disengaged. To be heard alongwith a bove said case.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the peti t ioner submits that despite the

¶18

directions r eproduced above, services of t h e petitioner were terminated by the respon d ent in the year 2019.

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶20

COCP-737-2021

¶21

-2-

¶22

Learned counsel for the res p ondent submits that the main writ petiti o n bearing No. CWP-27753-20 1 7 filed by the petitioner along with other connected writ petition was dis p osed of by the Writ Court vide common o r der dated 21.09.2023 (Annexu r e R-2) and operative part of the said order r eads as under:-

¶23

“Keeping in view t h e fact that as of now, no regularization policy exists a s the judgment of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra), wherein the Policy has been set-aside, has not been staye d and is operational, hence, the present petitions are disp o sed of with liberty to the petitioner(s) that in case afte r the judgment is passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of In dia, any right accrues to the petitioner(s) to claim the b e nefit of regularization of the services under the Policy co n cerned, they will be at liberty either to revive the present pe t itions or to file a fresh petition. Further, in case, henc ef orth the respondents pass any order causing prejudice t o the petitioner(s) qua their services, the petitioner(s) will be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before th e appropriate forum.

¶24

In case, respondent-de p artment is of the view that the work of the post on which p etitioner(s) are working exists they will be allowed to c o ntinue in service, otherwise detailed order will be pas s ed by the respondent given reasons for not allowing t h e petitioner(s) to continue in service and whether the w o rk of the post exists, will be decided by the respondents keeping in view the various instructions issued by the res p ondents in that regard.”

¶25

It is further submitted that o n the basis of the directions of this Court reproduced above, order dated 1 9.04.2024 (Annexure R-3) has been passed and services of the petitioner w ere terminated as there was no post avail a ble against which the petition e r can be regularized and even there was n o workload available with the r espondents. It is also submitted that the said order (Annexure R-3) h a s been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent thus, submits that in view of the above no contempt is made out a g ainst the respondents and the present pe t ition may be dismissed.