Haryana Contract Beldar’s Removal Stands: P&H HC Finds No Vacancy And Says 2024 Act’s 2019 Cut-Off Excludes Him

The petitioner was engaged as a Group-D Beldar on 30 December 2020, initially through an outsourcing agency and subsequently through HKRNL.

After an earlier relieving order was challenged, the High Court’s order dated 24 December 2025 recorded the State’s undertaking to withdraw that order, allow the petitioners to continue until a fresh decision, and reconsider each case independently in accordance with law

On 30 September 2026, the authorities again dispensed with the petitioner’s engagement, stating that no sanctioned vacant Beldar post remained after adjustment of regular employees and contractual employees covered by the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227, alleging non-compliance with the earlier order, lack of reasons, and entitlement to protection or adjustment against vacant posts.

The Court applied the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, holding that the petitioner—appointed on 30 December 2020—was outside the protection identified by the Court because he was not appointed before the Act’s stated cut-off date of 15 August 2019.

It also applied the principle that a contractual employee has no indefeasible right to continue against a non-existent sanctioned vacancy, and treated the Government Instructions dated 27 December 2024 and 15 January 2025 as governing continuation where no sanctioned vacant post was available.

The earlier undertaking required fresh, individual consideration and continuation only until that fresh decision; it did not bar a lawful decision to relieve the petitioner.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The Court read the 24 December 2025 order as requiring the State to reconsider each case independently and permit continuation only pending that decision; accordingly, it found no breach once a fresh decision had been made.

The petitioner’s appointment date was after 15 August 2019, so the Court rejected his claim to protection under the 2024 Act.

It also found that the challenged order recorded the sanctioned-post position, the adjustments made for regular and protected contractual employees, and the reasons for relieving the petitioner.

The order therefore demonstrated consideration of the relevant matters and was not non-speaking; the earlier RTI information about vacancies related to March 2025, while the impugned order stated that no Beldar vacancy was then available.

The Government Instructions had not been challenged, and the petitioner did not controvert the stated factual position.

Because the petitioner was outside the Act’s protection and no sanctioned vacant Beldar post was available, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.