P&H HC Upholds Relieving Of Contract Beldar Hired In 2022, Citing No Sanctioned Vacancy And 2024 Act’s 2019 Cut-Off

In brief

The question

1. Whether the order relieving the petitioner violated the earlier order and the State’s assurance that he would continue until a fresh decision was made.

The court held

The Court held that the State had complied with the earlier direction, the impugned order was reasoned, and the petitioner was neither protected by the 2024 Act nor entitled to continue against a non-available sanctioned post.

It also directed

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

01Facts

The petitioner was engaged through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Limited (HKRNL) as a Beldar on a contractual basis in 2022.

p. 3

After an earlier relieving order was challenged, the High Court directed the State to reconsider each petitioner’s case independently and recorded the State’s assurance that the petitioners could continue until a fresh decision was taken.

pp. 3, 6–8

Following reconsideration, the respondent authority passed an order dated 7 August 2026 relieving the petitioner, citing the absence of a sanctioned vacant Beldar post and his ineligibility for protection under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, because his engagement post-dated the Act’s cut-off date of 15 August 2019.

pp. 8–9

The petitioner challenged that order as contrary to the earlier proceedings, non-speaking, and unlawful, and sought adjustment against vacancies.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the order relieving the petitioner violated the earlier order and the State’s assurance that he would continue until a fresh decision was made.

pp. 6–8

ii.2. Whether the relieving order was unsustainable as non-speaking or because the petitioner was entitled to statutory protection or adjustment against a vacant post.

pp. 8–10

03Law Applied

The Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 protects only employees who satisfy its statutory eligibility conditions, including the applicable cut-off date of 15 August 2019; an engagement after that date does not qualify for the Act’s protection.

p. 8, 10

The Court also applied the principle that contractual engagement does not confer an indefeasible right to continue against a post where no sanctioned vacancy is available.

pp. 9–10

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

pp. 6–8

The Court noted that the Government instructions dated 27 December 2024 and 15 January 2025 had not been challenged.

p. 10

04Reasoning

The Court read the earlier order as requiring the State to reconsider the petitioner’s case and allow him to continue only until that reconsideration was completed. It found no breach because the authority had made a fresh decision.

pp. 6–8

The impugned order set out the vacancy position and reasons for relieving the petitioner, and was therefore not non-speaking.

pp. 8–9

The petitioner was engaged after the Act’s cut-off date and was consequently outside its protection; the authority had also found no sanctioned vacant Beldar post available after adjustment of regular and protected contractual employees.

pp. 8–10

In the absence of a vacant sanctioned post, and with the relevant Government instructions unchallenged, the Court rejected the claim to continued service or adjustment.

pp. 9–10