Disposed¶29

Lalit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2026CWP/5290/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.5290 of 2026; Lalit Kumar v. State of Haryana and others; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Harpreet Singh Brar; HKRNL; Nigam; contractual manpower; Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy 2022; deployment offer; fresh proposal; re-join duty; University Attendant; removal from portal; railway accident absence; Family ID; certiorari; Articles 226/227; Article 215 contempt proceedings; disposed with direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3-Deputy General Manager, HKRNL to issue a fresh deployment offer to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in case of deviation. ¶29

Lalit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order/letter dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P14) passed by respondent No.3 and the impugned order/letter issued by respondent No.4 should be quashed, and the respondents directed to permit the petitioner to re-join duty with all consequential benefits.

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Deputy General Manager, HKRNL to issue a fresh deployment offer to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶29

Key takeaways

In case respondent No.3 deviates from the directions issued by the Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar, J.), by order dated July 06, 2026, disposed of CWP No.5290 of 2026 (Lalit Kumar v. State of Haryana and others). The petitioner, engaged as contractual manpower through HKRNL and deployed with a University needing an Attendant, had remained absent from duty owing to a railway accident met with on 25.04.2023 requiring continuous treatment till 02.12.2024; during this absence the University communicated to the Nigam on 27.06.2024 that his contract had expired, and the Nigam decided on 08.07.2024 to remove the manpower/petitioner's name from its portal. The writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India sought certiorari for quashing of impugned order/letter dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P14) of respondent No.3 and the impugned order/letter of respondent No.4, with a prayer to permit re-joining duty with consequential benefits. An earlier order dated 30.04.2026 had directed the University to send a fresh proposal to the Nigam, and although a deployment offer of 30.06.2026 went unaccepted (attributed to a Family ID mobile-number issue), the petitioner expressed willingness to accept. The Court directed respondent No.3-Deputy General Manager, HKRNL, to issue a fresh deployment offer within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order, and cautioned that deviation would entitle the petitioner to approach the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for contempt proceedings.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

110 Civil Writ Petition No.5290 of 2026 Date of Decision: July 06 , 2026 .

¶3

Lalit Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others

¶6

...... RESPONDENT(s)

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶8

Present: Mr. Sumit S.Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Ranvir Sood, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

¶13

Prayer in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of impugned order/letter dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P14) passed by respondent No.3 and impugned order/letter issued by respondent No.4 with a further prayer directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to re-join duty with all consequential benefits.

¶14

On 30.04.2026, this Court passed the following order:-

¶15

“ Learned State counsel has received instructions from the Nigam with respect to the interim order dated 26.02.2026. She contends that memo dated 03.03.2025, Annexure P-6, was written to the University in a routine manner with reference to clause 4(xi) of the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022, though it was intended to convey that the University should follow the procedure envisaged under clause 5.8 of the Policy, i.e., performance

¶16

OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.5290 of 2026

¶18

[2]

¶19

monitoring of contractual manpower. She, however, is not in a position to explain as to how, without any mention of clause 5.8 in the said letter, can it be accepted that the Nigam intended to refer to it.

¶20

2. It is also a fact not disputed that the petitioner remained absent from duty only on account of a railway accident he met with on 25.04.2023, which required continuous treatment till 02.12.2024. It was during this period of absence the University had earlier communicated to the Nigam on 27.06.2024, that his contract had expired. This resulted in the Nigam taking a decision to remove the manpower/petitioner’s name from its portal as per the decision taken on 08.07.2024. This decision needs to be ignored in view of subsequent communication by the Nigam itself dated 03.03.2025. Besides, the University is on record saying that they want to engage the services of the petitioner as they are in need of an Attendant.

¶21

3. In view thereof, the University is directed to send a fresh proposal to the Nigam for engagement of the petitioner’s services within two weeks from today, and an appropriate decision thereupon will be taken by the Nigam in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

4. Adjourned to 06.07.2026. ”

¶23

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had been given deployment offer on 30.06.2026, however, the same was not accepted by the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that prior to the deployment offer, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities on 18.06.2026 and he has appeared in the office of HKRNL. Learned counsel further submits that the mobile number mentioned in the Family ID was reflected on record, which is being used by the petitioner’s father, who is illiterate. Due to

¶25

a genuine apprehension of online cyber fraud, his father did not respond ‘Yes’ to

¶26

OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the message. The petitioner is, however, willing to accept the deployment offer. High Court, Chandigarh

¶27

CWP No.5290 of 2026

¶28

[3]

¶29

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Deputy General Manager, HKRNL to issue a fresh deployment offer to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶30

It is made clear that in case respondent No.3 deviates from the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings.

¶31

( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 06 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’

¶32

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

¶33

OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Lalit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit 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

Indu Grover Vs Ccs, Haryana Agricultural University, Hi

Kaushal Raj Vs State of Hy. and Ors.

Sunita Vs State of Hy.

Vijay Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balinder Singh Vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and Others

Dr. Manisha Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Others