Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivkesh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 July, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.13555 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.13555 of 2013.
Date of Decision:-02.07.2013.
Shivkesh and others .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present:- Mr. A.K.Singh Goyat, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)
Notice of motion.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents and waives service on them for final disposal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is covered by the ratio of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in similar writ petition No.2346 of 2013 decided on 4.2.2013 of this Court, the text of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-15. The decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is consistent with the opinion expressed by this Court and by the Supreme Court that contractual employees cannot be replaced by another similar arrangement and their services are to be continued till regular recruitment of Canal Patwaris is made unless their work and conduct indicates to the contrary.
Yag Dutt 2013.08.31 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13555 of 2013 2
Mr. Rathee submits that the ratio of the judgment is open to doubt. On a consideration of the matter, what Mr. Rathee urges is not consistent with the decision of this Court in Rajni Bala Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (4) R.S.J.
329. Also see, Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2007) 13 S.C.C. 292.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court during the hearing of this matter and an executive order passed by the Executive Engineer, Adampur, District Hisar dated 17.5.2013 in which similar relief has been given to the dis-engaged contractual Canal Patwaris. The same is taken on record as Mark-A. The administrative decision is based on an outsourcing policy of Haryana Government dated 16.2.2009 on D.C. rates on contractual basis. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Rathee is inconsistent with the policy of the State.
The writ petition is, consequently, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to re-engage the petitioners as Canal Patwaris in terms of the outsourcing policy. The petitioners will continue till such time as regular recruitment is made.
Costs of ` 10,000/- is imposed upon the Government for having unnecessarily forced the petitioners to approach this Court. Costs will be personal to the petitioners.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
July 2, 2013 JUDGE
'Yag Dutt'
Yag Dutt
2013.08.31 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document