Mandeep And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
130 CWP-36579-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Mandeep and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of
an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially in the nature of
Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-8,
respectively passed by the respondent no. 4, as having been passed,
intentionally, by colourable exercise of powers after this Hon'ble court
stayed the operation of the orders, as having been passed in the same
lines, however, still the impugned order dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-8,
was again passed by the respondent no. 4 despite the fact that the same
is again non-speaking, cryptic, laconic, without jurisdiction but
contemptuous in nature and thus legally not sustainable in the eyes of law
especially in view of the fact that this Hon'ble court vide orders dated
24.12.2025, Annexure P-7, while setting aside the same very relieving
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 2 of 10
orders of the petitioners as Group 'D', directions were also issued to take a
decision, afresh at the level of the head of department, however despite
specific undertaking given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana on
behalf of the respondent-State, as recorded in the order dated
24.12.2025, Annexure P-7, the respondent no. 4 has now again passed the
impugned order dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-8 in complete defiance of
the said undertaking and the directions of this Hon'ble court, illegally
relieving the petitioners from service, on the same lines by ignoring the
directions dated 24.12.2025, Annexure P-7, the undertaking given by the
learned Advocate General as well as the provisions of Clause 11-A (ii) of
the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022, as amended vide
circular dated 13.5.2025, Annexure P-5, in wholly illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional and thus the impugned action of the
respondents is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law; AND By issuing a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the respondents be directed to adjust
the petitioners in the same Irrigation Department against the available
vacant posts in various circles of the respondent no. 2/Irrigation
Department or against any available group-D vacancies in any other
department of Govt. of Haryana and not to discriminate the petitioners in
violation of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners were appointed as Group ‘D’ (Multi Skill Workers) on a
contractual basis and are fully eligible and qualified as per the Haryana
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 3 of 10
Group D Employees (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Act, 2018 dated
28.03.2018(Annexure P-1). They have been serving the department
continuously, with their services being ported to the HKRN portal as per
policy.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioners, being
fully eligible and qualified as per Haryana Group D Employees
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2018, were appointed as
Group 'D' (Multi Skill Worker) Helper, through outsourcing agency, on
contractual basis with the respondent no. 4 and different dates details of
the petitioners are as under :-
Sr.
No.
Name Date of Joining Post
1. Mandeep 01.07.2021 Beldar
2. Akash Deswal 01.07.2021 Beldar
3. Mohit 01.07.2021 Beldar
4. Vickey 01.09.2021 Chokidar
5. Manoj 04.04.2021 Beldar
6. Deepak Kumar 01.01.2020 Beldar
4. Thereafter petitioners were issued relieving order dated
04.04.2025 (Annexure P-6). The said order was challenged by the
petitioner(s) before this Court by way of CWP-3524-2026 titled as
Mandeep and others vs. State of Haryana and others ; which was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-7/1) in
terms of order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed in CWP-7437-
2025 titled as Renu and others vs. State of Haryana and others ; wherein
respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 4 of 10
pass reasoned order. Ld. Counsel submits that the order dated 24.12.2025
(Annexure P-7) passed in CWP-7437-2025 categorically records the
undertaking given by ld. Advocate General, Haryana before this Court that
the petitioners will not be relieved from the posts. However, despite the
said undertaking, respondent No.4 has again passed non-speaking
impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8), which is in defiance of
the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure
P-7).
5. It is submitted that besides the fact that the order dated
17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) is in defiance of the directions of this Court
passed vide order dated 24.12.2025, even otherwise, the said order dated
17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) is unsustainable as it is a non-speaking order.
Moreover, it is along the same lines as the previous relieving order,
without assigning any cogent reasons.
6. Ld. Counsel submits that the respondents have wrongly
applied the rule of ‘First in First Out’ and have relieved the petitioner vide
the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8). It is also contended
that hundreds of Group-D posts are still lying vacant with the Irrigation
Department, in various Circles and Divisions and thus, the petitioner,
holding non-technical Group-D post, cannot be relieved and is liable to be
adjusted against the vacant post in the Irrigation Department. It is
reiterated that impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) is a non-
speaking, cryptic, totally illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction order
and has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 5 of 10
2024, according to which, employees cannot be disengaged as they are
protected under the Act, 2024. He accordingly prays that present Writ
Petition be allowed; and following prayers be accepted: -
“iv. PETITION under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or
direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the
impugned orders dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-8,
respectively passed by the respondent no. 4, as having been
passed, intentionally, by colourable exercise of powers after
this Hon'ble court stayed the operation of the orders, as
having been passed in the same lines, however, still the
impugned orders dated 17.04.2026, Annexure P-8, were
again passed by the respondent no. 4 despite the fact that
the same are again non-speaking, cryptic, laconic, without
jurisdiction but contemptuous in nature and thus legally not
sustainable in the eyes of law especially in view of the fact
that this Hon'ble court vide orders dated 24.12.2025,
Annexure P-7, while setting aside the same very relieving
orders of the petitioners as Group 'D', directions were also
issued to take a decision, afresh at the level of the head of
department, however despite specific undertaking given by
the learned Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the
respondent-State, as recorded in the orders dated
24.12.2025, Annexure P-7, the respondent no. 4 has now
again passed the impugned orders dated 17.04.2026,
Annexure P-8 in complete defiance of the said undertaking
and the directions of this Hon'ble court, illegally relieving the
petitioners from service, on the same lines by ignoring the
directions dated 24.12.2025, Annexure P-7, the undertaking
given by the learned Advocate General as well as the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 6 of 10
provisions of Clause 11-A (ii) of the Deployment of
Contractual Persons Policy, 2022, as amended vide circular
dated 13.5.2025, Annexure P-5, in wholly illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional and thus the impugned
action of the respondents is legally not sustainable in the eyes
of law;
v. By issuing a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the
respondents be directed to adjust the petitioners in the same
Irrigation Department against the available vacant posts in
various circles of the respondent no. 2/Irrigation Department
or against any available group-D vacancies in any other
department of Govt. of Haryana and not to discriminate the
petitioners in violation of their fundamental rights enshrined
under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
7. Per contra, ld. State Counsel appearing on advance notice
controverts submissions of the petitioner and submits that impugned
order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) is a speaking order; and cogent
reasons have been given for passing the same. As such, there is no merit
to the present Writ Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
9. It is the first contention of the petitioner that vide order
dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed in CWP-7437-2025 titled as Renu
and others vs. State of Haryana and others, ld. Advocate General,
Haryana had given an undertaking that the petitioners and other persons
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 7 of 10
similarly situate, will not be relieved. The said contention of the petitioner
is misleading. A perusal of the order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-7)
categorically records the undertaking of the ld. Advocate General, Haryana
to be as follows: -
“The learned Advocate General, Haryana, having
appeared before this Court today to render assistance in the
matter, has, undertaken assuring that the impugned relieving
orders by which the services of the petitioners were
dispensed with shall be withdrawn and they will be allowed
to continue till a fresh decision is taken. It has further been
stated that the State shall undertake a fresh consideration of
the matter by examining the case of each petitioner
independently and shall pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.”
10. Therefore, the only assurance given by the ld. Advocate
General, Haryana was “ That the State shall undertake a fresh
consideration of the matter by examining the case of each petitioner
independently and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
and till a fresh decision is taken, petitioners were to be allowed to
continue in service. Thus, there is no violation of any direction of this
Court.
11. It has further been contended by ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that posts are still lying vacant. However, perusal of impugned
order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) shows that respondents have
categorically stated that there are no posts of Beldar presently available.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 8 of 10
12. Petitioner has further stated that they are entitled to
protection under the Act, 2024 as they have rendered more than 4 years
of service. However, even the said contention of the petitioners is
misconceived as admittedly, petitioners were appointed between the
years 2020-2021; whereas the cut off date as per the Act, 2024 is
15.08.2019. Thus, appointment of the petitioners were not prior to
15.08.2019. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to protection under the
Act, 2024.
13. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for Petitioners that as
per RTI Infomation dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-15), there are 300
vacant post of Group ‘D’ available. However, the said information pertains
to March, 2025 and the latest position is depicted in impugned order
dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8), which shows that there are no vacant
posts of Beldar presently available.
14. It has also been contended by the petitioners that impugned
order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) is not a speaking order. The said
argument is factually incorrect. The relevant extract of the impugned
order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) reads as follows: -
“Accordingly, the petitioner Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.
Mahipal Singh, Sh. Mandeep S/o Sh. Pawan, Sh. Deepak
Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Aakash Deswal S/o Sh. Sanjay
Kumar, Sh. Vickey S/o Ajit Singh, Sh. Mohit So Sh. Chand
Singh, Sh. Pardeep S/o Sh. Rampal Re-joined on 16/03/2026
(F.N.).
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 9 of 10
Whereas, after joining of regular Beldars/Workmen,
there is no vacant post of Beldars/ Workmen is
available in Bahadurgarh Water Services Division,
Bahadurgarh. The details of vacant post of Group-D (Beldars/
Workmen) is tabulated below:-
Sr.
No.
Post Sanctions
Strength
Regular Covered
under
Security
Act &
HKRN
Not
covered
under
Security
Act
Vacancy/
Excess
1 Beldar
/Canal
Guard
28 No. 23 Nos 04 Nos. 01 No. NIL
2 Helper 04 Nos 01 Nos 01 Nos. 02 Nos NIL
3 Chowk
idar
02 Nos 03 Nos - 01 Nos.
Excess
Keeping in view of above due to the non-availability of
vacancy of respective post in Bahadurgarh Water Services
Division, Bahadurgarh the services of the petitioner i.e. Sh.
Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh, Sh. Mandeep S/o Sh.
Pawan, Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Aakash
Deswal S/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sh. Vickey S/o Ajit Singh, Sh.
Mohit S/o Sh. Chand Singh, Sh. Pardeep S/o Sh. Rampal are
hereby dispensed with immediate effect.”
15. From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the
respondents have examined every aspect of the matter threadbare and
passed the impugned order only thereafter. The respondents have duly
considered the vacancy position, and passed the impugned order, keeping
in mind the rights of the regularly appointed candidates after following
due process of selection through HSSC; against those who have rendered
contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the
2024 Act; and persons such as the petitioner who has not been appointed
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 10 of 10
before the cut-off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus
employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 17.04.2026
(Annexure P-8), respondent-State has delineated the factual position; as
also the reasons for relieving the petitioner from the post of Beldar. The
impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable
construction of selection, as also rationale.
16. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of
the petitioner have been relieved as there is no available sanctioned post
after adjusting regular appointees and the protected contractual
employees. From the above facts, it is clear that continuation of the
petitioner against non-available sanctioned post, would be in violation of
the Government Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. Very
importantly, the said Instructions have not been challenged by the
petitioner. It is also clear that petitioner was appointed after the cut off
date of 15.08.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not
available to the petitioner.
17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said factual position.
18. Consequentially, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
19. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
04.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36579-2026 (O&M) 11 of 10
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document