Present: Mr.Harish Mehla Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091823
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-23-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.Harish Mehla Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
in the punjab & haryana high court, chandigarh civil writ petition no.21107 of 2013 date of decision: 23.09.2013 raman kumar and others ....petitioners versus state of haryana and others ....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.harish mehla, advocate, for the petitioner. ***** 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j. (oral) cwp no.7446 of 2012 was decided on 8.5.2012 on the same factual background. this court disposed of that petition as follows : - “it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as instructors in industrial training institutes, haryana. petitioners are continuing as such but apprehend termination and consequent replacement of their services by other contractual employees. he prays for quashing of the action of respondents in restricting the appointment of the petitioners for a period not exceeding six months and also enforcing the agreement. kumar paritosh 2013.09.24 10:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.21197 of 2013 2 the apprehension, as raised by the petitioners.appears to be without any basis as of now as there is no suggestive material which would show that the respondents are resorting to any process of replacing the services of the petitioners by way of contractual employees. petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment and therefore, cannot now agitate so far as those terms and conditions are concerned unless they are violated by the respondents. their services can be terminated at any stage after the contract is over and also during the subsistence of the contract, if their work and conduct is found to be unsatisfactory. the grievance, as made by the petitioners.would arise in case their services are sought to be replaced by other contractual employees, in which eventuality petitioners would acquire a right of consideration. for the aforementioned reasons, the instant petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners be not removed from service or by replacing other similar employees on contractual basis. in case need to employ such persons subsists, their services, however, can be terminated during the subsistence of the contract if their work and conduct is found to be wanting and not to be satisfaction of the employer.”. disposed of in the same terms.(rajiv narain raina) sept. 23, 2013 judge paritosh kumar kumar paritosh 2013.09.24 10:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21107 of 2013 Date of decision: 23.09.2013 Raman Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Harish Mehla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

(Oral) CWP No.7446 of 2012 was decided on 8.5.2012 on the same factual background.

This Court disposed of that petition as follows : - “It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes, Haryana.

Petitioners are continuing as such but apprehend termination and consequent replacement of their services by other contractual employees.

He prays for quashing of the action of respondents in restricting the appointment of the petitioners for a period not exceeding six months and also enforcing the agreement.

Kumar Paritosh 2013.09.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.21197 of 2013 2 The apprehension, as raised by the petitioneRs.appears to be without any basis as of now as there is no suggestive material which would show that the respondents are resorting to any process of replacing the services of the petitioners by way of contractual employees.

Petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment and therefore, cannot now agitate so far as those terms and conditions are concerned unless they are violated by the respondents.

Their services can be terminated at any stage after the contract is over and also during the subsistence of the contract, if their work and conduct is found to be unsatisfactory.

The grievance, as made by the petitioneRs.would arise in case their services are sought to be replaced by other contractual employees, in which eventuality petitioners would acquire a right of consideration.

For the aforementioned reasons, the instant petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners be not removed from service or by replacing other similar employees on contractual basis.

In case need to employ such persons subsists, their services, however, can be terminated during the subsistence of the contract if their work and conduct is found to be wanting and not to be satisfaction of the employer.”

.

Disposed of in the same terMs.(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) Sept.

23, 2013 JUDGE Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2013.09.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document