Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
123 CWP-36482-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. G.S.Gopera, 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 orders dated 30.9.2026, Annexure P-24 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 30.9.2026, Annexure P-24 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-20,
DIVYANSHI
while setting aside the same very relieving orders of the petitioner and
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 2 of 10
others 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-20, the respondent no. 4 has now again passed the impugned
orders dated 30.9.2026, Annexure P-24 in complete defiance of the said
undertaking and the directions of this Hon'ble court, illegally relieving the
petitioner and others from service, on the same lines by ignoring the
directions dated 24.12.2025, Annexure P-20, 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/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 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 petitioner in
violation of his 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 petitioner that
petitioner was appointed as Group D (MSW/Beldar) on 30.12.2020,
initially through outsourcing agency, M/s. Tanwar Security Service and
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 3 of 10
thereafter through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Limited (hereinafter referred
to as ‘HKRNL’). Copy of Experience Certificate dated 29.01.2026 is
attached as Annexure P-1 and deployment letter dated 04.06.2022 issued
by respondent No.5 is attached as Annexure P-2. Thereafter petitioner
was issued relieving order dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-11). 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-21) in terms of order
dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-20) 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-20) 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 30.09.2026 (Annexure
P-24), which is in defiance of the directions passed by this Court vide
order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-20).
3. It is submitted that besides the fact that the order dated
30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) is in defiance of the directions of this Court
passed vide order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-20), even otherwise, the
said order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) is unsustainable as it is a
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 4 of 10
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 is very soon going to
complete 5 years of service and thereafter, he would be 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 30.09.2026
(Annexure P-24). 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
30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) 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) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially in
the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated
30.9.2026, Annexure P-24 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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 5 of 10
the impugned orders dated 30.9.2026, Annexure P-24 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-20, while setting aside the same very relieving
orders of the petitioner and others 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-20, the respondent no. 4 has now
again passed the impugned orders dated 30.9.2026,
Annexure P-24 in complete defiance of the said undertaking
and the directions of this Hon'ble court, illegally relieving the
petitioner and others from service, on the same lines by
ignoring the directions dated 24.12.2025, Annexure P-20, 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.”
5. Per contra, ld. State Counsel appearing on advance notice
controverts submissions of the petitioner and submits that impugned
order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) is a speaking order; and cogent
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 6 of 10
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-20) 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-20)
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.”
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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 7 of 10
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. 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 30.12.2020; 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.
10. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that
as per RTI Info Dt. 12.03.2025, 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 30.09.2026 (Annexure
P-24), which shows that there are no vacant posts of Beldar presently
available.
11. It has also been contended by the petitioner that impugned
order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) is not a speaking order. The said
argument is factually incorrect. The relevant extract of the impugned
order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-24) reads as follows: -
“The said representation has been duly considered along with
the complete service record.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 8 of 10
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 144 95 22 under
Process
Nil 38
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.
3. After adjustment of regular Group-D employees and
protected contractual employees, no vacant sanctioned post
of Beldar is available in this office.
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.
Order
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 Employees (Security of Service) Act,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 9 of 10
2024 and the factual position of sanctioned posts, it is hereby
ordered that:-
The services/engagement of Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh.
Bhagwan Dass, engaged through HKRNL/contractual
arrangement as Beldar, 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(s).”
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
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 30.09.2026
(Annexure P-24), 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.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36482-2026 (O&M) 10 of 10
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 .
16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
04.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document