CWP-27788-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27788-2017 (O&M) SUNIL KUMAR ......Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. .....Respondent Reserved on : 07.07.2026 Pronounced on: 09.07.2026 Uploaded on: 14.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 not to replace the services of petitioner, who are contractual with another contractual employee i.e. respondent No.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he was working sincerely since the date of his engagement as casual labour still the services of petitioner has been discontinued. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 contends that the petitioner was never engaged against any post and was engaged intermittently to meet the exigencies of service without following the proper and fair procedure prescribed for recruitment in the bank. And for his MOHD AYUB 2026.07.14 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-27788-2017 (O&M) -2- work which was hourly based, he was paid in cash. Therefore, he has no right to continue in this engagement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that petitioner was engaged by the bank as casual labour and was paid for each day as per the work done by him for number of hours through cash voucher. Nothing on record is placed by the petitioner to show that he was engaged as a daily wager or contractual employee against any post. Even in the writ petition the petitioner is not able to state as to against which post he was engaged and there is no engagement or appointment letter on record. As per the reply he was engaged on day-to-day/ hour-to-hour basis for cash engagement in the bank that is why he was paid through cash voucher. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Saahil/Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.14 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.