Read Order: Mohit v. State of Haryana and others 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, July 7, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to reinstate a contractual government employee, who was recently replaced with another employee, while citing that there was no direct relationship of master-servant as the petitioner was hired through a third party service provider.

The observation of the division bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh came in response to the appeal filed by a Data Entry Operator working in the Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana, who was recently replaced with another employee.  

After a single bench refused to give him relief, he appealed against the order while contending that he was selected for the said job after his approval by the competent authority on the basis of his performance in the typing test. After his appointment, he was working directly under the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. He was removed from the said job and replaced with another employee. 

“Such type of action on behalf of the Government is not acceptable under law,” the petitioner stated while referring to the Supreme Court order in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others, wherein it was held that a person employed on ad hoc basis cannot be replaced by another ad hoc arrangement of the same nature.

The petitioner contended that one another similarly situated contractual employee namely Amit Kumar Singla has been granted interim relief by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 27th August, 2020 and was allowed to rejoin the services.

Dismissing the appeal, the division bench decided that In this case the petitioner failed to produce his appointment letter, if any, issued by the Haryana Government or any of its departments.

“He was also unable to establish that he was under the direct employment of respondents. During arguments, the counsel for the petitioner admitted that he and some other persons were engaged by the respondents as Data Entry Operators through a service provider namely Laxmi Placement Services. So, undisputedly, he was engaged by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner through a service provider. However, the said private outsourcing agency was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition,” stated the bench.

The bench further stated, “In wake of the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly observed that there was no relationship of master-servant between the respondents and the petitioner. The similar view was taken by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-19762-2018 titled as Vikash vs. The State of Haryana and Others, decided on 11.12.2019, wherein it was held that the petitioner therein has no direct relationship with the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram where he was working as an outsourced employee.”

The Division Bench also held that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh’s case (supra) relates to contractual employees directly engaged by the Government College Authorities and is not related to outsourced employees, so the same is of no assistance in the present case.

Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits, the bench ruled.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment