Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 31 August, 2022
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
CWP No.15977 of 2016 (O&M)
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-15977-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision:31.08.2022
Parveen Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, D.A.G., Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure P-8) whereby petitioner's services have been terminated.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Pump Attendant/Operator in the respondent - department on 26.09.2006. He suffered a paralysis attack in February, 2015 and remained admitted in various hospitals including PGI, Chandigarh. However, vide impugned order dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure P-8) his services were terminated by the respondent-department. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2016 and the petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court vide Page 1 of 3 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2022 11:59:36 ::: CWP No.15977 of 2016 (O&M) LPA No.2030 of 2016. The Division Bench remanded the case back for fresh decision on the basis of medical record annexed as Annexures, showing that the petitioner was in and out of hospital right uptil February, 2016, after having suffered a paralytic stroke, with his brain having been operated thereafter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that since the petitioner was suffering from serious health ailment, he could not join his duties. He would further rely on the State Government Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-11) under which services of Group 'C' and 'D' employees engaged on contractual basis were to be considered for regularization, provided they had worked for not less than 3 years as on 28.05.2014.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.
6. Concededly, the petitioner's services were hired on contract. The contractual employee has only limited rights confined within the four corners of the contract of employment. It is the prerogative of an employer to continue and/or discontinue with the contractual services in terms of the contract. I am of the view that on the short ground of being a matter of contract, this Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
7. This Court would refrain from interfering in the domain of the employer's discretion to engage employees on contract. Further the petitioner is stated to have died and the learned counsel Page 2 of 3 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2022 11:59:36 ::: CWP No.15977 of 2016 (O&M) had sought time to implead the LRs. However, no application has been moved in this regard. Even otherwise, the LRs have no vested right to seek job in place of deceased petitioner.
8. Dismissed with liberty to the legal heirs of the petitioner to seek appropriate alternative remedy as may be advised and available in law.
9. Pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
August 31, 2022 (ARUN MONGA)
ashish JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Page 3 of 3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2022 11:59:36 :::