Cwp No.3832 of 2013 (Oandm) Vs. State of Haryana and Others --respondents - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1062368
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-24-2013
AppellantCwp No.3832 of 2013 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Haryana and Others --respondents
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.3832 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:24. 5.2013 surender singh --petitioner versus state of haryana & others --respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present:- mr.mukesh yadav, advocate for the petitioner. *** tejinder singh dhindsa.j in pursuance to a service agreement entered into on 2.5.2012 between the state of haryana acting through the i.t.i department and the petitioner, services of the petitioner were engaged purely on a contractual basis for a period of six months as mechanist instructor. as per terms and conditions of such service agreement, the petitioner was engaged for a period not exceeding six months w.e.f.2.5.2012 and was to be paid a fixed monthly remuneration. the instant writ petition has been filed impugning an order dated 6.6.2012 (annexure p-4).whereby engagement of the petitioner on contractual basis has been cancelled. learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had been engaged for a period of six months and as such he was vested with a right to continue up to 1.11.2012. that apart, counsel has urged that the sole basis of passing of the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 is that a clerical mistake as regards the preparation of the merit list is sought to be corrected inasmuch as respondent no.4, who had secured higher marks as compared to the petitioner but had not been granted appointment initially is not sought to be engaged in place of the petitioner. counsel would submit cwp no.3832 of 2013 (o&m) -2- that such correction of the clerical mistake as regards the marks secured by the petitioner as also private respondent had been made at the initial stage itself but inspite thereof the petitioner had been appointed on contractual basis on 2.5.2012. accordingly, the argument raised is that in the light of the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 (annexure p-4) the services of the petitioner have been replaced by yet another contractual employee and the same is not permissible in law. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, i find that no directions are required to be passed in the present writ petition. this is precisely for the reason that the petitioner at best had a right to serve on a contractual basis on the post of mechanist instructor for a period of six months i.e.up to 1.11.2012. even if, the submissions made by the counsel were to be accepted, still, the only relief that can possibly be granted to the petitioner is as regards salary for the contractual period for which he had been engaged. as such, for all intents and purposes, it is a pure money claim that is sought to be raised in the light of filing of the present writ petition. the present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail of any other civil remedy that may be available to him, strictly in accordance with law. petition disposed of. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge 24 5.2013 lucky
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3832 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:

24. 5.2013 Surender Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:- Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J In pursuance to a service agreement entered into on 2.5.2012 between the State of Haryana acting through the I.T.I Department and the petitioner, services of the petitioner were engaged purely on a contractual basis for a period of six months as Mechanist Instructor.

As per terms and conditions of such service agreement, the petitioner was engaged for a period not exceeding six months w.e.f.2.5.2012 and was to be paid a fixed monthly remuneration.

The instant writ petition has been filed impugning an order dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure P-4).whereby engagement of the petitioner on contractual basis has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had been engaged for a period of six months and as such he was vested with a right to continue up to 1.11.2012.

That apart, counsel has urged that the sole basis of passing of the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 is that a clerical mistake as regards the preparation of the merit list is sought to be corrected inasmuch as respondent no.4, who had secured higher marks as compared to the petitioner but had not been granted appointment initially is not sought to be engaged in place of the petitioner.

Counsel would submit CWP No.3832 of 2013 (O&M) -2- that such correction of the clerical mistake as regards the marks secured by the petitioner as also private respondent had been made at the initial stage itself but inspite thereof the petitioner had been appointed on contractual basis on 2.5.2012.

Accordingly, the argument raised is that in the light of the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure P-4) the services of the petitioner have been replaced by yet another contractual employee and the same is not permissible in law.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that no directions are required to be passed in the present writ petition.

This is precisely for the reason that the petitioner at best had a right to serve on a contractual basis on the post of Mechanist Instructor for a period of six months i.e.up to 1.11.2012.

Even if, the submissions made by the counsel were to be accepted, still, the only relief that can possibly be granted to the petitioner is as regards salary for the contractual period for which he had been engaged.

As such, for all intents and purposes, it is a pure money claim that is sought to be raised in the light of filing of the present writ petition.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail of any other civil remedy that may be available to him, strictly in accordance with law.

Petition disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 24 5.2013 lucky