Renu Saini and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

India has been filed by the pe��oners for issuance of a writ in the nature of Cer�orari quashing the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5), whereby the pe��oners have been ordered to be relieved from the post of M.P.H.W. (F), Health Services Department, Haryana, with a direc�on to submit their joining report before respondent No. 3.

¶12

It is inter alia submi�ed by learned counsel for the pe��oners that vide Adver�sement No.01/2015 dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.4-Haryana Staff Selec�on Commission (hereina�er ‘HSSC’) vide Category No. 9, 300 posts of Mul�-purpose Health Workers (hereina�er ‘MPHW (F)’), in the Department of Health Services Haryana, were adver�sed. The pe��oners applied for the said post and were appointed as such vide order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-2, P-3 and P-4) issued by respondent No.2.

¶13

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

CWP-5569-2020 (O&M)

¶16

Ld. counsel submits that the pe��oners were working at their respec�ve place of pos�ng since the dates of their appointment, in the Health Department Haryana. However, now respondent No.2/ Director General Health Services, Haryana vide impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) has ordered to relieve the pe��oners from their present place of pos�ng and has directed them to submit their joining report to respondent No.3 i.e. the Director Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana (hereina�er ‘ESI’). Thus, vide the impugned order dated 24.02.2020, services of the pe��oners have been terminated without issuing show cause no�ce a�er 2 years service.

¶17

Ld. counsel argues that the pe��oners have been appointed in the Health Services Department, Haryana vide appointment le�ers dated 08.08.2018 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Director General Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula. Now respondent No.2 has passed the Impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) vide which the pe��oners are ordered to be relieved and they are being directed to submit the joining report to the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director, Employees State Insurance Health Care, Haryana, which falls under the Department of Labour, Haryana without the consent of the pe��oners. The pe��oners have been appointed in the func�onal pay level 4 @ Rs.25500/- per month; and the pay scale for the post of MPHW(F) is lower in the Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana. It is contended that the pe��oners would suffer hardship if they are forced to join the Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana by respondent No.2.

¶18

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

CWP-5569-2020 (O&M)

¶20

- 3 -

¶21

Ld. counsel for the pe��oners has further submi�ed that the Director General Health Services has no power to change the Department of the pe��oner. It is contended that the pe��oner had applied in the Health Department and as such, cannot be relieved from there. Ld. counsel refers to the adver�sement (Annexure P-1) to submit that 300 posts had been adver�sed in the Health Department. As such, without consent, pe��oner cannot be shi�ed/ transferred to the ESI Department which is under the Labor Department.

¶22

It is submi�ed that therefore, the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is accordingly prayed that a writ in the nature of Cer�orari be issued thereby quashing the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5).

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the pe��oners and has stated that the adver�sement (Annexure P-1) issued by the Commission was a combined adver�sement of two departments i.e. the ESI Health Care Department, Haryana and the Health Department, Haryana. It is further submi�ed that the real grievance of the pe��oners is that in the ESI lower pay scale was being granted. However, now no cause of ac�on survives in favor of the pe��oners as vide order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure R-6) same pay scale has been granted to the MPHW (F/M) working in the ESI Department and the MPHW (F/M) working in the Health Department. Thus, grievance of the pe��oner, as referred to in para 7 of the writ pe��on, no longer survives. It is accordingly prayed, that the present writ pe��on be dismissed, being without merit.

¶24

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶25

CWP-5569-2020 (O&M)

¶26

- 4 -

¶27

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

¶28

I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the pe��oners. It is the first grievance of the pe��oner that despite being appointed vide order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) through the HSSC, a�er rendering 2 years service, pe��oners have been terminated without show cause no�ce vide impugned order dated 24.02.2020. The said conten�on of the pe��oner is u�erly misplaced. As, vide the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) it has only been directed as follows: -

¶29

“You are being sent the following list of M.P.H.W. (F) who have been selected from Health Department to E.S.I. Health Care vide le�er No.HSSC/Confd./Recomm./2019/629 dated 12.09.2019 of Haryana Staff Selec�on Commission and it is requested that they may be relieved from duty with immediate effect and Directorate be informed and to give them order to submit their joining report to Director E.S.I. Haryana with immediate effect.”

¶30

Clearly, therefore, pe��oners have not been relieved; and they have only been transferred from Health Department to ESI Health Care Department.

¶31

Ld. counsel for the pe��oner has further submi�ed that the said transfer orders could not have been passed as the Director General Health Services has no power to change the Department of the pe��oner. However, the said conten�on of the pe��oner is also misconceived as a perusal of the appointment le�ers dated 08.08.2018, (Annexure P-2 to P-4) clearly show that in Clause 14, it is s�pulated as follows:-

¶32

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶33

CWP-5569-2020 (O&M)

¶34

- 5 -

¶35

“ You are liable to be transferred anywhere within or outside the State of Haryana.”

¶36

Further, ld. Counsel for the pe��oners has not denied that the actual grievance is as averred in para 7 of the writ pe��on which reads as follows:-

¶37

“7.That the pe��oners have been appointed in the func�onal pay level 4 @ Rs.25500/- per month and the pay scale for the post of MPHW(F) is lower in the Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana. The pe��oners would suffer hardship if they are forced to join the Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana by the respondent No.2.”

¶38

Thus, the crux of the ma�er appears to be that the pe��oners are aggrieved of the fact that the Pay scale being granted to MPHW (F) is lower in the Employee State Insurance Health Care, Haryana. No doubt, at the �me of revise result of above stated MPHW (F) the pay grade of MPHW (F) in ESI Health Care Department, Haryana was FPL-4; and in Health Department pay scale of MPHW (F) was FPL-6 as per instruc�ons of Finance Department dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure R-5). However, even the said grievance of the pe��oner is addressed as Finance Department, Haryana has issued Instruc�ons/ order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure R-6). As per which, the Government of Haryana has granted the same pay grade of FPL-6 (35,400) to the MPHW (F/M) working in the ESI Health Care Department, Haryana as MPHW (M/F) working in the respondent Department.

¶39

It has further been pointed out that on dated 20.09.2019 respondent issued le�er No.2/2-2FW/2019-2573 to ESI Health Care Department, Haryana, reques�ng to relieve 37 candidates with immediate effect

¶40

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶41

CWP-5569-2020 (O&M) - 6 -

¶42

from ESI Health Care Department Haryana in compliance of le�er No.HSSC/confd/recomm/2019/628 dated 12.09.2019. Accordingly, 37 candidates were relieved by ESI Health Care Department, Haryana and a�er relieving from ESI Health Care Department Haryana all 37 candidates have joined Health Department on different dates. The ESI Health Care Department Haryana has also sent the le�er No.101/17-ESI-E-3-1-2020/470 dated 17.02.2020 to the respondent for relieving 17 candidates including pe��oners with immediate effect who had already joined in Health Department as per appointment le�er issued on dated 08.08.2018. In response to the above stated le�er of ESI Health Care Department, Haryana, the respondent relieved all the 17 candidates from Health Department by order No.2/2-2 FW/2020/526-550 dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure R-4). It Is per�nent to men�on here that all 17 candidates/MPHW (F) are s�ll working in the Health Department in view of stay orders dated 02.03.2020 granted by this Court.

¶43

Lastly transfer is an incidence of service, and no employee has a legally enforceable right to remain posted at a par�cular place. Ld. counsel for the pe��oners is unable to dispute or controvert the above factual and legal posi�on.

¶44

16 . In view of the above, the present writ pe��on stands, dismissed .

¶45

Pending applica�on(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶46

( NIDHI GUPTA ) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam

¶47

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶48

NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.16 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Renu Saini and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Saini and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahil Vs State of Haryana

Isham Singh Vs Hy State

Rajinder Parsad Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunehri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Monika Dhankhar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.