Six Haryana Contract Group-D Workers Hired After 2019 Cut-Off Lose Relieving Challenge As P&H HC Finds No Posts In Their Division

In brief

The question

1. Whether the fresh relieving order violated the undertaking and directions recorded in the earlier proceedings.

The court held

The court held that the petitioners had not established breach of the earlier undertaking, that the impugned order was reasoned, and that they were not entitled to the claimed statutory protection or continuation against unavailable sanctioned posts.

It also directed

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

01Facts

The petitioners were contractual Group ‘D’ workers in the Irrigation Department, appointed between 2020 and 2021.

pp. 3–4

Their earlier relieving orders were set aside, and the State undertook to reconsider each case independently, allowing the petitioners to continue until a fresh decision was made

pp. 3–4, 7

After the petitioners rejoined, the respondent department passed a fresh order dated 17 April 2026 dispensing with their services, citing the absence of vacant sanctioned posts after accounting for regular and protected contractual employees.

pp. 8–9

The petitioners challenged that order, alleging breach of the court’s earlier order and undertaking, failure to give reasons, and entitlement to adjustment against vacant Group ‘D’ posts or protection under the Act, 2024.

pp. 1–2, 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the fresh relieving order violated the undertaking and directions recorded in the earlier proceedings.

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the relieving order was non-speaking or otherwise unlawful, including because of the asserted availability of vacant posts and the petitioners’ claimed protection under the Act, 2024.

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

The court applied the Act, 2024, under which the relevant cutoff date for protection was 15 August 2019; employees appointed after that date were not entitled to the protection claimed in this case.

p. 8

It also relied on the Government Instructions dated 27 December 2024 and 15 January 2025, which the court treated as precluding continuation against a non-available sanctioned post; the petitioners had not challenged those instructions.

p. 10

The court further treated the State’s undertaking as requiring fresh, individual consideration and continuation only until that fresh decision was made.

pp. 7–8

04Reasoning

The court read the earlier undertaking as requiring the State to reconsider each petitioner’s case and permit continuation only pending that decision; it therefore found no breach when the department issued a fresh decision.

pp. 7–8

The impugned order set out the relevant vacancy position and stated that no vacant post was available after adjustment of regular appointees and protected contractual employees, which the court found sufficient to show application of mind and reasons for relieving the petitioners.

pp. 8–10

The petitioners’ reliance on vacancy information from March 2025 did not displace the later position recorded in the April 2026 order.

p. 8

Finally, because the petitioners were appointed after 15 August 2019, the court held that they did not qualify for protection under the Act, 2024.

p. 8, 10