Avinash @Kaley and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Present Civil Writ Pe��on under Ar�cles 226/227 of the Cons�tu�on of India has been filed by the pe��oners for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus direc�ng the respondents to allow the pe��oners to con�nue in service �ll joining of the regularly selected candidates against the sanc�oned vacant posts, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others and grant the pe��oners the minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment, together with all consequen�al benefits, including arrears and interest, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble

¶10

Supreme Court.

¶11

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶12

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

It is inter alia submi�ed by learned counsel for the pe��oners that the 13 pe��oners herein were engaged on posts of Sewerman, Plumber, Carpenter, Baildar on contract basis as they fulfilled the requisite qualifica�on and eligibility for the said posts. Accordingly, the pe��oners joined their du�es on the said post. In para No.2 of the present writ pe��on, it is averred that ‘ details of the qualifica�on and date of joining of the service by the pe��oners is given below :

¶15

Sr. No.	Name	Post	Date of Joining
1.	Avinash @ Kaley	_Sewarman _	April 2011
2.	Beer Bhan	_Sewarman _	May 2011
3.	Rajesh	_Sewarman _	April 2011
4.	Mukesh	_Sewarman _	May 2013
5.	Sudhir	Plumber	15.02.2015
6.	Avdesh	Plumber	23.10.2016
7.	Shailender	Plumber	23.10.2016
8.	Devraj	Carpenter	March 2013
9.	Dayachand	Baildar	03.04.2011
10.	_Satya Prakash _	Baildar	April 2011
11.	Sanjay Singh	Baildar	16.01.2015
12.	Ombir	Baildar	March 2015
13.	Deepak	Baildar	February 2014

¶16

It is submi�ed that since the dates of their appointment, the pe��oners have been working to the sa�sfac�on of their seniors and no complaint in respect of their work and conduct has ever been made. Moreover, pe��oners have been working without any break since the dates of their appointment and have rendered con�nuous service on the post, however, on contract basis. As such, the pe��oners are eligible for regulariza�on.

¶17

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶19

- 3 -

¶20

However, instead, suddenly on 16.04.2019, when the pe��oners had reported for duty as usual, they were not allowed to join duty and were verbally informed that their services are no longer required. Accordingly, pe��oners had submi�ed a representa�on dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure P-1), to the respondents sta�ng that they may be allowed to con�nue in service �ll regular appointments are made by the respondent-authority. However, to no avail.

¶21

Ld. counsel contends that the said ac�on of the respondents is in the teeth of voluminous case law on the subject wherein it has been held �me and again by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court that temporary employee should be allowed to con�nue �ll regular selec�ons are made; that temporary employees are en�tled to salary and also to minimum pay scale admissible to regular employees.

¶22

It is further submi�ed that in relieving the pe��oners, the respondents have ignored the fact that pe��oners were appointed on contract basis a�er following due procedure. Thus, the pe��oners cannot be stated to be a back door entry. As demonstrated above, pe��oners have been working for sufficient length of �me. Thus, they should be allowed to con�nue �ll the scheme is con�nuing and is in existence. In case of Hargurpartap Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others , the Supreme Court has given the direc�on not to displace one adhoc arrangement with another adhoc arrangement. As such, pe��oners are en�tled to con�nue in service �ll the scheme is con�nued or regular candidate is appointed. It is accordingly prayed

¶23

that the present pe��on be allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus be

¶24

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶25

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶26

- 4 -

¶27

issued direc�ng the respondents to allow the pe��oners to con�nue in service �ll arrival of regular candidates as sufficient vacant posts are available with the respondent department .

¶28

7 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe��oners by sta�ng that the pe��oners have inten�onally concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as, the pe��oners have failed to disclose that they were engaged only on part-�me basis. It is submi�ed that the pe��oners are not even contractual employees as pe��oners are not working with the respondentdepartment as pe��oners have in actual fact been engaged with a contractor at their own level; and it was the contractor who had dispensed with the services of the pe��oners in March 2019. Even no salary was being paid by the respondent-department to the pe��oners. It is accordingly submi�ed that the present Writ Pe��on be dismissed being without merit.

¶29

No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the par�es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail.

¶30

I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the

¶31

pe��oners.

¶32

The respondents have filed wri�en statement dated 16.09.2019 wherein in paras 2 and 3, it has been categorically stated as follows: -

¶33

“2. That the present writ pe��on filed by the pe��oners is against the law and facts and the same is not maintainable. Vide the present writ pe��on, the pe��oners have sought relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direc�ng the respondents to allow the pe��oners to con�nue in service �ll arrival of regular candidates. In this regard, it is

¶34

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶36

- 5 -

¶37

submi�ed that the pe��oners have concealed the material facts from the Hon'ble court knowingly and inten�onally. It is brought to the no�ce of Hon'ble Court that the pe��oners are not working under the establishment of this office. They have been deployed by contractor/agency who had engaged them at their own level were dispensed off during March, 2019. Moreover, no salary is paid by the department to the Pe��oners. Further, it is brought out that the Govt. of Haryana had appointed regular employees/candidate against the sanc�oned vacant post in whole of the State of Haryana through Subordinate Selec�on Board and accordingly 56 Nos. Group-D regular employees had joined their duty in the office of the answering respondent during January-2019 and the services of the persons deployed by contractor/agency, who had engaged them at their own level were dispensed off during March, 2019. This fact is very much in the knowledge of the pe��oners. Accordingly, the services of the contractual/ agency who had engaged them were dispensed off as the regular candidates had joined. Hence, the pe��oners have no cause of ac�on to file the present writ pe��on and the same deserves dismissal. Moreover, the pe��oners have not impleaded the contractor/agency as necessary party in this case.

¶38

3. That the pe��oners have also prayed for direc�ng the respondent to grant minimum of regular pay scale to the pe��oners from the date of their appointment. In this regard, it is once again brought to the no�ce of Hon'ble Court at the cost of repe��on that the pe��oners are not working under the establishment of this office. They have been deployed by contractor/agency who had engaged them at their own level. Further, the answering respondent has never issued any appointment le�er nor the pe��oners were directly working under the control of answering respondents. The answering respondent had never made any payment in the name of pe��oners. Moreover, there is no record of any work done available on the books of respondent. Hence, the pe��oners are not en�tled to get any claim from the respondents. As the pe��oners have no cause of ac�on to file the present writ pe��on and the same deserves dismissal.”

¶39

No replica�on has been filed by the pe��oners to the above said

¶40

wri�en statement dated 16.09.2019 refu�ng the above said averments. It thus,

¶41

amounts to an admission on part of the pe��oners to the truth of the above NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶42

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶43

- 6 -

¶44

said factual posi�on. The pe��oners have therefore admi�ed that they were not working under the respondent-department; that they had only been deployed by their contractor/agency which had engaged the services of the pe��oners at his own level; that no appointment le�ers were issued to the pe��oners by the respondent-Department; and the said contractor/agency had dispensed with the services of the pe��oners at his own level; that no salary is being paid to the pe��oners by the respondent-department; that pe��oners have been relieved a�er regular appointments through proper process have been made against sanc�oned posts; and that there is no service record available of the pe��oners. Even no service record has been a�ached by the pe��oners along with the present writ pe��on. As noted above, pe��oners have also not denied that regular appointments have been made by the respondent-department against the sanc�oned posts to which the regularly appointed incumbents have joined duty in January 2019. As such, no right accrues to the pe��oners.

¶45

The present case is squarely covered and the said issue of engagement/deployment through contractor/agency, has been considered and se�led by a Division Bench of this Court in Nishan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

¶46

(P&H)(DB): Law Finder DOC Id # 487412 as under: -

¶47

“Appellants neither selected under Service Rules applicable to be regular employees or the Punjab State nor there was any adver�sement issued by the State under which they applied for their engagement as regular or contractual employees of the State - It was the service provider who entered into an agreement with the State agency to provide work force on certain terms and condi�on The service provider selected the candidates and supplied the same to the Government Department-provider is not an agency of the State to make recruitment against the civil posts. The acceptance of claim of the appellants shall amount to back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the

¶48

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶49

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶50

- 7 -

¶51

mandate of Ar�cles 14 and 16 of the Cons�tu�on - No factual or legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ pe��ons.

¶52

XXX XXX XXX

¶53

16. The State has taken a policy decision for regulariza�on of services of the contractual employees who were appointed a�er fulfilling eligibility criteria as per proper procedure. In the case of appellants neither they were selected under the Service Rules applicable to the regular employees of the Punjab State nor there was any adver�sement issued by the State under which they applied for their engagement as regular or contractual employee of the State. It was the service provider who entered into an agreement with the State agency to provide work force on certain terms and condi�ons. The service provider selected the candidates and supplied the same to the Government Department. A service provider is not an agency of the State to make the recruitment against the civil posts. The selec�on made by the service provider, if taken as appointment made by the State, will have serious repercussions and violates the rights of thousands of more meritorious candidates who might not have applied for engagement by a Service Provider but would definitely be keen to seek public employment under the State. The acceptance of claim of the appellants shall thus amount to back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Ar�cles 14 and 16 of the Cons�tu�on .”

¶54

The said view of the Division Bench has been reiterated by this

¶55

Court in subsequent decision rendered in CWP-20305-2021 �tle as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 28.09.2022 wherein it is

¶56

held as under:

¶57

“The pe��oner is an outsourced employee. It is se�led law that no writ pe��on would lie against an outsourcing agency, as it is not an authority in terms of Ar�cle 12 of the Cons�tu�on of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(11) RCR (Civil) 262, wherein it has been held that the service provider who has selected the candidates for work in the government department, is not an agency of the State. The appellants therein were neither selected under any service rules applicable to regular employees of the State of Punjab nor did they apply under any adver�sement for their appointment as contractual or regular employees of the state. It was further held that the acceptance of the claim of the appellants therein for con�nua�on of services

¶58

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶59

CWP-15154-2019 (O&M)

¶60

- 8 -

¶61

would amount to a back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Ar�cles 14 and 16 of the Cons�tu�on of India.

¶62

In the case of Anmol Garg and another versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP No. 29655 of 2018, decided on 28.11.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ pe��on preferred by an employee engaged through outsourcing agency which was upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No. 1910 of 2018, decided on 10.12.2018 and the opera�ve part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

¶63

"Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a license under the contract to supply manpower held there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The principle being canvassed before us applies only in case there is a privity of contract between the employee and the employer. In the case in hand, the appellant was an employee of the service provider. The benefit of the said principle is not liable to be extended to her and, thus, we do not find any illegality commi�ed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ pe��on."

¶64

Reference can also be made to the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of 'Vikas versus The State of Haryana and others' bearing CWP No. 19762 of 2018, decided on 11.12.2019, 'Kailash Chand and others versus Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and others', bearing CWP No.21345 of 2021, decided on 18.01.2022 and 'Naresh Kumar and others versus Haryana State Warehousing Corpora�on and others', bearing CWP No.17454 of 2020, decided on 02.12.2020, wherein similar pe��ons of outsourcing employees were also dismissed.”

¶65