Dismissed

Dharmender Sharma and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CWP/21271/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HKRNL contractual employees of the Forest/Wildlife Department challenged their termination letters on grounds that they lacked protection under the 2024 Security of Service Act, were terminated without hearing, and were discriminated against. The Court held petitioners had no vested right to continue under the DOL terms and Deployment Policy 2022, no discrimination was made out, and dismissed the

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharmender Sharma and Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

112 CWP-21271-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.07.2026

¶3

Dharmender Sharma and others … Pe��oners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate, for the pe��oners.

¶8

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A G, Haryana. *****

¶9

NIDHI GUPTA, J .

¶10

Present Civil Writ Pe��on under Ar�cles 226 of the Cons�tu�on of India has been filed by the pe��oner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer�orari quashing the impugned le�ers No. 794-795 dated 01.07.2026 (P-12), No. 800-802 dated 01.07.2026 (P-13) issued by respondent no. 2, and No. 10511065 dated 08.07.2026 (P-14) issued by respondent no. 4, whereby the services of the pe��oners have been arbitrarily terminated; and further issue a writ of mandamus direc�ng the respondents to reinstate/con�nue the pe��oners in service as HKRNL Contractual Employees with con�nuity of service and all consequen�al benefits.

¶11

It is inter alia submi�ed by ld. counsel for the pe��oners that the pe��oners had joined the respondent-Forest Department on contractual basis NEELAM KUMARI through outsourcing agency, namely, Shine and Sind Security Solu�ons Pvt. Ltd. 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶12

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

Subsequently pe��oners were engaged on their respec�ve posts on contractual basis in the office of respondent No.2/Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (hereina�er ‘PCCF’). Since their respec�ve dates of engagement pe��oners have con�nuously and diligently discharged their du�es to the sa�sfac�on of the respondents. The Government of Haryana vide le�er dated 19.01.2022 set up the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (here in a�er ‘HKRNL’) with the mandate of deploying contractual manpower in Govt. Departments/ Boards/ Corpora�ons etc. as per the wage rates prescribed by the Nigam, i.e. the ‘Nigam Wage Rates’.

¶15

The Government of Haryana also issued Deployment of Contractual Policy 2022 vide no�fica�on dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-2). The object of this policy was to meet the requirement of short term unskilled and semi-skilled manpower including emergent needs of the Government organiza�ons not above Job Role of Level-III. The HKRNL issued Deployment Ofer Le�ersf /DOL to persons already working with the respondent department on contractual basis including the pe��oners. By way of example, ld. counsel refers to the DOL dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued to pe��oner No. 5 herein namely, Sandeep Sahu. Learned counsel submits that therea�er, the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 (hereina�er ‘Act’) came to be enacted vide no�fica�on dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure P-4).

¶16

It is submi�ed that due to the acute shortage of staff, respondent No. 2/PCCF vide le�er No. 181 dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) addressed to respondent No. 1/Addi�onal Chief Secretary, Haryana proposed sanc�on of 72 addi�onal posts on various categories including Superintendents, Clerks, Drivers,

¶17

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶19

- 3 -

¶20

Peons and other Group D staff to enable the department to discharge its statutory func�ons smoothly. Ld. counsel points out that in the said le�er dated 20.06.2024, it is specifically recorded that in the absence of the said posts Government work was suffering considerably.

¶21

It is submi�ed that the respondent No.2/PCCF vide le�er dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) also sought renewal of contract of employees working in the renewal of contract of employees appointed through HKRNL for the financial year 2025-2026. It is submi�ed that the said le�er itself categorized the contractual employees into two categories namely those who had completed 5 years' service as on 15.08.2024 and those who had not. The pe��oners, having joined only in the year 2021, fell within the la�er category, and yet, were expressly shown by respondent no. 2 itself as employees whose services were required to be con�nued for the year 2025-2026.

¶22

Therea�er the respondent No.2 PCCF vide another le�er dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) addressed to respondent No.1/Addi�onal Chief Secretary, Haryana sought approval for crea�on/con�nua�on of 36 contractual posts and for extension of the contract of the concerned employees for the financial year 2025-26. The said proposal was reiterated by respondent No.2 and forwarded for Government approval vide le�er dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P- 8). Therea�er on 03.12.2025, a Mee�ng of the State Board of Wildlife, Haryana was convened under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Minister in the Commi�ee Room at Haryana Civil Secretariat and 40 HKRN employees were given sanc�on in the said mee�ng; and the Minutes of Mee�ng were issued vide

¶23

Le�er No. 400-417 dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-9). It is further submi�ed that NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

- 4 -

¶25

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶26

vide le�er dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.2 again sent a consolidated proposal to the respondent No.1 for renewal of the contract period of the contractual employees deployed through HKRNL. Vide Le�er dated 10.6.2026 (Annexure P-11), the respondent-department conveyed its approval for extending contractual engagement of the above said 251 Forest Wing employees, and 22 Wildlife Wing employees for the period 1.4.2026 to 30.6.2026, deployed through HKRNL, subject to compliance with condi�ons contained in Deployment Policy, 2022 et cetera, and other relevant rules and regula�ons and Instruc�ons. The pe��oners' names were missing from the said list.

¶27

Ld. counsel submits that while asser�ng to implement the aforesaid approval dated 10.06.2026, respondent no. 2 vide Memo No. 794-795 dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-12), addressed to the Divisional Wildlife Officers, Gurugram and Panchkula, restricted the benefit of con�nua�on only to those 22 employees of the Wildlife Wing who had completed 5 years' service as on 15.08.2024, being the class of employees protected under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 and directed that no person other than those 22 named employees be con�nued in service without approval.

¶28

Ld. Counsel contends that the said Act nowhere mandates or contemplates the automa�c termina�on of contractual employees who have not completed 5 years' service. It merely secures the services of those who have. Respondent no. 2, without any independent applica�on of mind to the individual facts and length of service of the remaining similarly situated NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M) - 5 -

¶30

employees, including the pe��oners, mechanically excluded them from the benefit of con�nua�on. It is submi�ed that consequent upon the above, respondent no. 2 issued the impugned Le�er No. 400-402 dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-13), addressed individually to the pe��oners no. 1, 2 and 9, and terminated/relieved them from service with immediate effect, solely on the ground that no sanc�oned post is available in the office and that approval has not been received from the Government. It is contented that neither any Show Cause No�ce was issued to the pe��oners nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded nor any reason relatable to their individual conduct, performance, seniority inter se the retained employees or eligibility was assigned prior to passing the impugned Le�er.

¶31

Ld. Counsel submits that in con�nua�on and further corrobora�on of the aforesaid The Divisional Wildlife Officer Gurugram/respondent no. 4, ac�ng upon the direc�ons contained in Le�er bearing reference No. 794-795 dated 01.07.2026 (P-12) and the impugned Le�er No. 800-802 dated 01.07.2026 (P-13), vide its impugned Le�er No. 1051-65 dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-14), similarly relieved the contractual employees including pe��oners no. 17 to 21 who are also HKRNL contractual employees with effect from 01.07.2026 on the similar ground that their names did not figure in the Contract Renewal List for the Financial Year 2026-27 conveyed vide the Government Le�er dated 10.06.2026.

¶32

Ld. counsel argues that the impugned le�ers dated 01.07.2026 (Annexures P-12 and P-13) and impugned le�er dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-

¶33

have been passed in gross viola�on of the principles of natural jus�ce NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶34

- 6 -

¶35

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶36

inasmuch as the pe��oners who have been rendering con�nuous uninterrupted and sa�sfactory service since the year 2021 have been abruptly terminated and deprived of their livelihood without issuance of any show cause no�ce and without being afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is submi�ed that the 2024 Act is a beneficial legisla�on enacted to secure the services of contractual employees such as the pe��oners. It is contended that the said Act has been arbitrarily misapplied to terminate the pe��oners without following any ra�onal, fair or non-discriminatory method.

¶37

It is further submi�ed that the impugned ac�on is viola�ve of Ar�cle 14 of the Cons�tu�on of India inasmuch as similarly and even less circumstanced contractual employees engaged through HKRNL in other offices and divisions of the same department performing iden�cal du�es have been retained and their contracts have been proposed for renewal. Thus, no intelligible differen�a has been applied by the respondents while termina�ng the pe��oners. This is especially so as the work/posts against which the pe��oners were employed con�nues to exist. It is pointed out that the respondents' own proposal dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) for crea�on of 72 addi�onal permanent posts remains pending with the Government �ll today.

¶38

Learned counsel further submits that the pe��oners have been terminated purely on the administra�ve/budgetary ground of “non-availability of sanc�oned posts”. It is submi�ed that the said situa�on is en�rely a�ributable to the respondents' own inac�on in not ge�ng sanc�oned the proposals for 72 addi�onal posts pending since 20.06.2024. From the above, it is also clear that

¶39

the pe��oners have not been terminated due to any misconduct, inefficiency or NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶40

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M) - 7 -

¶41

adverse performance on their part. It is further pointed out that in numerous similar ma�ers this Court including CWP-20616-2026, this Court has been pleased to issue no�ce vide order dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-15). It is accordingly prayed that the present writ pe��on be allowed; and a writ in the nature of cer�orari be issued for quashing of impugned Le�er No. 794-795 dated 01.07.2026 (P-12) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the services of employees/pe��oners deployed through HKRN has been ordered to be terminated; impugned Le�er No. 800-802 dated 01.07.2026 (P-13) issued by respondent no. 2 whereby the services of pe��oners have been terminated; impugned Le�er No. 1051-1065 dated 08.07.2026 (P-14) issued by respondent no. 4, whereby the pe��oners have been terminated, who are contractual employees engaged through HKRNL and have been con�nuously working since the year 2021, have been abruptly terminated; and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direc�ng the respondents authori�es to con�nue/reinstate the pe��oners in service as HKRNL Contractual Employees with con�nuity of service and all consequen�al benefits.

¶42

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the pe��oners and submi�ed that pe��oners' services have been terminated when their contractual deployment came to an end, and the Inden�ng Department decided not to extend the contract of the pe��oners due to non-availability of sanc�oned posts. It is further submi�ed that the reliance of the pe��oner upon Minutes of the Mee�ng dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) of the State Board for Wildlife, Haryana as per which there was acute shortage of staff, is misconceived

¶43

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶44

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶45

- 8 -

¶46

as the ul�mate approval has to come from the Government of Haryana. It is submi�ed that vide le�er dated 08.05.2016 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.2PCCF had also sent a consolidated proposal to the Addi�onal Chief Secretary, Haryana for renewal of contract period of contractual employees. Similarly, vide le�er dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-11) again request for approval for extending contractual engagement of 251 Forest Wing Employees 22 Wildlife Wing Employees i.e. total 273 employees was sent. However, vide le�er dated 10.06.2026, the Government of Haryana had given extension only to those 22 employees who were covered under the Act of 2024. Ld. Counsel submits that the same comes within the domain of the Government and not that of the respondent department. Thus, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity.

¶47

It is further pointed out that as per Clause 5.9 of the Deployment Policy of 2022 (Annexure P-2), it is also s�pulated that the term of deployment is for a limited period of one year or the period specified in DOL/Deployment Offer Le�er whichever is earlier. A similar Clause 6 is also contained in all the DOL le�ers issued to the contractual employees, including the pe��oners. Therefore, no rights of the pe��oners have been violated. It has been clearly stated in the impugned order that there is non-availability of sanc�oned posts. Accordingly, the present writ pe��on deserves to be dismissed.

¶48

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. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe��oners.

¶49

The undisputed facts are that the pe��oners were previously

¶50

appointed through outsourcing agency Shine and Sind Security Solu�ons Private NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶51

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶52

- 9 -

¶53

Limited on contract basis between the years 2018 to 2023 vide appointment le�er dated 30.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) (at page 39 of the paper book), issued by the abovesaid Contrac�ng Agency in case of pe��oner No. 1 i.e. is Dharmender Sharma. Thus, at �me of ini�al appointment pe��oners were not engaged through HKRNL and were not employees of the respondent State, but were employees of their Contractor. Subsequently, pe��oners were borne on the portal of HKRNL as evident from Deployment Offer Le�er dated 25.03.2022 issued to the pe��oner No.1 (Annexure P-1) (at page 40 of the paper book). It is not the case of the pe��oners that they were appointed prior to cut off date of 15.08.2019 as s�pulated under the Act of 2024; or that they have worked for a con�nuous period of five years. It is in fact acknowledged by the pe��oners themselves that they were ini�ally appointed on their respec�ve posts through outsourcing agency i.e. is Shine and Sind Security Solu�ons Private Limited on contract basis between the years; and that they were issued deployment offer le�ers by the HKRNL only in the year 2022. Clearly therefore pe��oners are not en�tled to protec�on under the Act of 2024.

¶54

It is also not disputed by the pe��oners that despite the fact that recommenda�on dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-11) was made by the respondent-department for retaining/extending the contract of 273 employees, the respondent-State of Haryana has retained/extended the contract of only those 22 Wildlife Wing Employees who came under the 2024 Act. Thus, no discrimina�on is made out against the pe��oners.

¶55

Ld. counsel for the pe��oners is also unable to controvert that the Government has given extension only to those employees who are covered NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶56

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶57

- 10 -

¶58

under the Act of 2024, i.e. they have rendered 5 years of con�nuous sa�sfactory service. Whereas, admi�edly, pe��oners are not eligible for protec�on under the 2024 Act. Therefore, no right accrues to the pe��oners.

¶59

The main thrust of the arguments of ld. counsel for the pe��oners has been that the respondent department through the respondent No.2, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests/PCCF, has �me and again submi�ed requisi�ons to the Government of Haryana seeking approval for crea�on and/or extension of posts of contractual employees. In this regard, ld. counsel for the pe��oner has referred in par�cular to Minutes of Mee�ng dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) of the State Board for Wildlife, Haryana, wherein as per agenda item 8.10, acute staff shortage at various levels has been highlighted due to increasing workload. However, it is also not disputed that sanc�oned posts are not available. Ld. counsel for the pe��oners has been unable to show anything to this Court to remotely indicate that vacancies exist or that any sanc�oned posts are available. In fact, in the impugned order dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-13) issued by respondent no.2/PCCF, it is clearly recorded that:

¶60

“ Therefore, due to the non-availability of sanc�oned posts in this office and due to not receiving approval from the Government, you are hereby relieved from this office.”

¶61

It is further to be seen that a bare reading of the Deployment Offer Le�ers issued to the pe��oners carry a s�pula�on that pe��oners shall have no right to con�nue upon expiry of their term. By the way of example, DOL dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-3), issued to the pe��oner No.5 herein categorically s�pulates in clause 6 thereof as follows:-

¶62

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶63

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶64

- 11 -

¶65

“6. The services of the manpower so deployed shall hereina�er cease on the expiry of the term and such manpower shall not be en�tled for any claim for the regularisa�on/con�nua�on of sevices or any other consequen�al benefits.”

¶66

A similar condi�on is contained in clause 5.9 of the Deployment Policy of 2022/ Annexure P-2, s�pula�ng thereby that the term of appointment shall automa�cally cease upon expiry of contract. The said clause 5.9 is as follows:

¶67

“5.9 Term of deployment:

¶68

Under this policy the term of deployment in the first instance shall be for a period of one year or the period specified in the DOL, whichever is earlier. It will cease automa�cally without providing any claim to the deployed manpower to any con�nua�on of deployment or any consequen�al benefits. Two months prior to the expiry of the deployment term, the Inden�ng Organisa�on, based on the monthly performance appraisal and consent of the deployed manpower, shall submit an extension request for a specified period, less than or equal to a year, subject to approval of Finance Department. A�er proper examina�on, the Nigam shall extend the deployment term for the period specified by the Inden�ng Organisa�on through the portal. The manpower so engaged shall not have any legal right for claiming regulariza�on of his/her services in the Inden�ng Organisa�on where he/she has been deployed.”

¶69

In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the impugned order termina�ng the services of the pe��oners is legally infirm as it is admi�ed fact on record that pe��oners do not fall within the ambit of protec�on of the Act of 2024; no discrimina�on is caused to the pe��oners as only those 22 persons have been retained who are eligible for protec�on under

¶70

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.20 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶71

CWP-21271-2026 (O&M)

¶72

- 12 -

¶73

the Act of 2024; no sanc�oned posts are available; and no principles of natural jus�ce can be said to have been violated as pe��oners have no legal or vested right to con�nue in view of the above said clauses contained in the DOL as well as the Deployment Policy of 2022.

¶74