Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshal Lal Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 537 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 537 of 2012
Date of Decision : October 10, 2012
Roshal Lal Yadav and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court on an apprehension that their services would be terminated by the respondents as their contracts of service were expiring.
Respondents have filed their reply, wherein they have stated that they have no right to continue in service and it is a fixed tenure appointment.
On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and on going through the records of the case, I am of the view that the apprehension as raised by the petitioners that their services would be terminated on expiry of a contractual period, CWP No. 537 of 2012 2 appears to be without any basis as of now as there is no suggestive material which would show that the respondents are resorting to any process of replacing the services of the petitioners by way of contractual employees. Petitioners have accepted the term & conditions of the appointment and therefore, cannot now agitate so far as those terms and conditions are concerned unless they are violated by the respondents.
For the aforementioned reasons, the instant petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners be not removed from service or replaced by other fresh employee(s) on contractual basis, in case need to employ such persons subsists. Their services, however, can be terminated during the subsistence of the contract if their work and conduct is found to be wanting and not to the satisfaction of the employer and as per the terms of contract which is binding on both the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the liberty may be granted to the petitioners to file a representation to the respondents claiming the minimum of the pay scales which they are entitled to in the light of the fact that their appointments have been made by the respondents by issuing proper advertisement and the process of selection have been held. This he contends is based upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2012(1) PLR 1.
In the light of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents, which shall CWP No. 537 of 2012 3 be considered and decided by the respondents in accordance with law within a period of three months of the date of receipt of the representation. Decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioners forthwith.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
October 10, 2012 JUDGE
pj
CWP No. 537 of 2012 4