Sanjay vs State Of Haryana And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 1 of 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-35632-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.10.2026
Sanjay ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Pramod Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
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 petitioner for the issuance of an
appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari,
quashing the impugned termination/speaking order dated 07.08.2026,
Annexure P-11 passed by the respondent no. 4, as having been passed,
intentionally, by colorable exercise of powers after this Hon'ble Court
stayed the operation of the order, as having been passed in the same
lines, however, still the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 (P-11), 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 order dated
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 2 of 11
16.01.2026, Annexure P-10 while setting aside the same very relieving
order of the petitioner 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-9, the respondent no. 4 has now again passed the
impugned order date 07.08.2026 in complete defiance of the said
undertaking and the directions of this Hon'ble Court, illegally relieving the
petitioner from service, on the same lines by ignoring the directions dated
24.12.2025, Annexure P-9 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(P-4) 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/OR By issuing a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus, the respondents be directed to adjust the petitioner
in the same Irrigation Department against the available vacant posts in
various circle 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 petitioner in violation of their
fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India; AND/OR By passing an ad-interim order or
directions, the operation of the impugned orders dated 07.08.2026(P-11)
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 3 of 11
passed by the respondent no.4 and relieving of the petitioner, may kindly
be stayed, during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest
of justice and equity.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was engaged through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ‘HKRNL’) on contractual basis as Beldar vide
order dated 05.09.2022. Thereafter petitioner was issued relieving order
dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-8). The said order was challenged by the
petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons before this Court by
way of CWP-802-2026 titled as Sunil Kumar and others vs. State of
Haryana and others ; which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
16.01.2026 (Annexure P-10) in terms of order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure
P-9) passed in CWP-7437-2025 titled as Renu and others vs. State of
Haryana and others . Ld. Counsel submits that the order dated 24.12.2025
(Annexure P-9) 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 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11), which is in defiance of
the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 (P-9).
3. It is submitted that besides the fact that the order dated
07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) is in defiance of the directions of this Court
passed vide order dated 24.12.2025, even otherwise, the said order dated
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 4 of 11
07.08.2011 (Annexure P-11) 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.
4. Ld. Counsel submits that petitioner had completed 4 years of
service and after one more year, he would have been entitled to
protection under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service)
Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2024). However, the
respondents have wrongly applied the rule of ‘First in First Out’ and have
relieved the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2026
(Annexure P-11). 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
07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) 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, 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: -
“(i) praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or
direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the
impugned termination/speaking orders dated 07.08.2026,
Annexure P-11 passed by the respondent no. 4, as having
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 5 of 11
been passed, intentionally, by colorable exercise of powers
after this Hon'ble court stayed the operation of the order, as
having been passed in the same lines, however, still the
impugned order dated 07.08.2026 (P-11), 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 order dated 16.01.2026, Annexure P-10 while
setting aside the same very relieving order of the petitioner
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-9, the
respondent no. 4 has now again passed the impugned order
date 07.08.2026 in complete defiance of the said undertaking
and the directions of this Hon'ble court, illegally relieving the
petitioner from service, on the same lines by ignoring the
directions dated 24.12.2025, Annexure P-9 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(P-4) in wholly illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional and thus the impugned
action of the respondents is legally not sustainable in the eyes
of law.
(ii) Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the respondents be
directed to adjust the petitioner in the same Irrigation
Department against the available vacant posts in various
circle of the respondent no. 2/Irrigation Department or
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 6 of 11
against any available group-D vacancies in any other
department of Govt. of Haryana and not to discriminate the
petitioner in violation of their fundamental rights enshrined
under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
5. Per contra, ld. State Counsel appearing on advance notice
controverts submissions of the petitioner and submits that impugned
order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) 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.
6. 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.
7. It is the first contention of the petitioner that vide order
dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) 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
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-9)
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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 7 of 11
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.”
8. 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.
9. It has further been contended by ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that posts are still lying vacant. However, perusal of impugned
order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) shows that respondents have
categorically stated that there are no posts of Beldar presently available.
10. Petitioner has further stated that he is entitled to protection
under the Act, 2024 as he has rendered more than 4 years of service.
However, even the said contention of the petitioner is misconceived as
admittedly, petitioner was appointed on 05.09.2022; whereas the cut off
date as per the Act, 2024 is 15.08.2019. Thus, appointment of the
petitioner was not prior to 15.08.2019. Therefore, petitioner is not
entitled to protection under the Act, 2024.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 8 of 11
11. It has also been contended by the petitioner that impugned
order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) is not a speaking order. The said
argument is factually incorrect. The relevant extract of the impugned
order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-11) reads as follows: -
“The said representation has been duly considered along with
the complete service record.
Factual Position Regarding Sanctioned Posts
After adjustment of regular Group-D/Common Cadre
employees and contractual employees covered under the
Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act,
2024, the position of posts in this office is as under:
Sr.
No.
Name
of Post
Total
Sanctioned
Posts
Regular
Employees
in Position
Contractual
/HKRNL
Employees
covered
under
Security of
Service Act
Vacant
Posts
Available
HKRNL
Employees
not covered
under
Security Act
1 Beldar 4 3 1 0 0
Findings
Upon careful examination, the following findings are
recorded:
1. The petitioner was engaged through HKRNL/contractual
arrangement and does not hold any regular sanctioned post.
2. The petitioner is not covered under the Haryana
Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, as Sh.
Sanjay joined the department on 25.08.2022 on contractual
basis, which is after the cut-off date of 15.08.2019.
3. After adjustment of regular Group-D employees and
protected contractual employees, no vacant sanctioned post
of Beldar is available in this office.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 9 of 11
4. Continuation of the petitioner in the absence of a
sanctioned vacant post would be violative of the Government
instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025.
5. The petitioner has no indefeasible legal right to continue
against a non-existent vacant post.
6. The benefit flowing from the judgment in Renu & Others vs
State of Haryana is admissible only to employees satisfying
the statutory eligibility conditions under the Haryana
Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024.
Therefore, after due consideration of the Hon'ble High Court
judgment, the representation of the petitioner, applicable
Government instructions, the provisions of the Haryana
Contractual Act. The services/engagement of Sh. Sanjay, S/o
Sh. Ramesh , engaged through HKRNL/contractual
arrangement as Beldar, are/is dispensed with/relieved with
immediate effect due to non-availability of sanctioned vacant
post after lawful adjustment of regular and protected
contractual employees.
This order has been passed strictly in compliance with the
directions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
12. 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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 10 of 11
contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the
2024 Act; and persons such as the petitioner who has not been appointed
before the cut-off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus
employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 07.08.2026
(Annexure P-11), 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.
13. 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.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said factual position.
15. Consequentially, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-35632-2026 (O&M) 11 of 11
16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
31.10.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.02 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document