LUVAS Service Won’t Count Toward Haryana’s 5-Year Job-Security Test, P&H HC Says, Rejecting Contract Worker’s Claim

The petitioner had worked on contract as a Lab Attendant in the Department of VPHE, LUVAS, Hisar, from 1 August 2017, and later as a Lab Technician at the Semen Bank, Hisar, from 1 September 2023 to 15 August 2024.

After his service ended, he sought job security under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, relying on his cumulative service and Rule 3(3) of the 2025 Rules.

He sought consideration of a physical application dated 25 September 2025; the respondents maintained that LUVAS service could not be counted because the University was autonomous.

Section 3(ii) of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 requires an eligible contractual employee to have completed at least five years of full-time service in a Government Organisation as of the appointed date, defined by Section 2(a) as 15 August 2024.

Section 2(f) defines “Government Organization” as a department, board, corporation or authority under which the eligible contractual employee was working when the Act commenced.

Rule 3(3) of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 2025 permits cumulative service to be counted where contractual service was partly in a Haryana Government department and partly in a Government board, corporation or authority.

The Human Resources Department’s letter dated 23 December 2025 required applications to be processed through the designated online portal and stated that physical applications or orders would not be entertained.

The Court held that Rule 3(3) did not extend the statutory definition of “Government Organization” to State Universities.

LUVAS was an autonomous University governed by its own rules and bye-laws, rather than a Government department, board, corporation or authority within the relevant provisions.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s service there could not be included in calculating the five-year qualifying period; excluding it, he had not established the required service under the Act and Rules.

The Court additionally noted that he had not applied through the prescribed online portal, and that his physical application therefore did not satisfy the stated procedure.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.