IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 08.07 .2026 Avinash @ Kaley and others … PeƟƟoners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Mansi, Advocate for Mr. B. K. Majoka Advocate for the peƟƟoners. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoners for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to allow the peƟƟoners to conƟnue in service Ɵll joining of the regularly selected candidates against the sancƟoned vacant posts, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others and grant the peƟƟoners the minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment, together with all consequenƟal benefits, including arrears and interest, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 2 - 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by learned counsel for the peƟƟoners that the 13 peƟƟoners herein were engaged on posts of Sewerman, Plumber, Carpenter, Baildar on contract basis as they fulfilled the requisite qualificaƟon and eligibility for the said posts. Accordingly, the peƟƟoners joined their duƟes on the said post. In para No.2 of the present writ peƟƟon, it is averred that ‘details of the qualificaƟon and date of joining of the service by the peƟƟoners is given below: Sr. No. Name Post Date of Joining 1. Avinash @ Kaley Sewarman April 2011 2. Beer Bhan Sewarman May 2011 3. Rajesh Sewarman April 2011 4. Mukesh Sewarman May 2013 5. Sudhir Plumber 15.02.2015 6. Avdesh Plumber 23.10.2016 7. Shailender Plumber 23.10.2016 8. Devraj Carpenter March 2013 9. Dayachand Baildar 03.04.2011 10. Satya Prakash Baildar April 2011 11. Sanjay Singh Baildar 16.01.2015 12. Ombir Baildar March 2015 13. Deepak Baildar February 2014 3. It is submiƩed that since the dates of their appointment, the peƟƟoners have been working to the saƟsfacƟon of their seniors and no complaint in respect of their work and conduct has ever been made. Moreover, peƟƟoners have been working without any break since the dates of their appointment and have rendered conƟnuous service on the post, however, on contract basis. As such, the peƟƟoners are eligible for regularizaƟon. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 3 - 4. However, instead, suddenly on 16.04.2019, when the peƟƟoners had reported for duty as usual, they were not allowed to join duty and were verbally informed that their services are no longer required. Accordingly, peƟƟoners had submiƩed a representaƟon dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure P-1), to the respondents staƟng that they may be allowed to conƟnue in service Ɵll regular appointments are made by the respondent-authority. However, to no avail. 5. Ld. counsel contends that the said acƟon of the respondents is in the teeth of voluminous case law on the subject wherein it has been held Ɵme and again by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court that temporary employee should be allowed to conƟnue Ɵll regular selecƟons are made; that temporary employees are enƟtled to salary and also to minimum pay scale admissible to regular employees. 6. It is further submiƩed that in relieving the peƟƟoners, the respondents have ignored the fact that peƟƟoners were appointed on contract basis aŌer following due procedure. Thus, the peƟƟoners cannot be stated to be a back door entry. As demonstrated above, peƟƟoners have been working for sufficient length of Ɵme. Thus, they should be allowed to conƟnue Ɵll the scheme is conƟnuing and is in existence. In case of Hargurpartap Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, the Supreme Court has given the direcƟon not to displace one adhoc arrangement with another adhoc arrangement. As such, peƟƟoners are enƟtled to conƟnue in service Ɵll the scheme is conƟnued or regular candidate is appointed. It is accordingly prayed that the present peƟƟon be allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus be NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 4 - issued direcƟng the respondents to allow the peƟƟoners to conƟnue in service Ɵll arrival of regular candidates as sufficient vacant posts are available with the respondent department. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoners by staƟng that the peƟƟoners have intenƟonally concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as, the peƟƟoners have failed to disclose that they were engaged only on part-Ɵme basis. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoners are not even contractual employees as peƟƟoners are not working with the respondent- department as peƟƟoners have in actual fact been engaged with a contractor at their own level; and it was the contractor who had dispensed with the services of the peƟƟoners in March 2019. Even no salary was being paid by the respondent-department to the peƟƟoners. It is accordingly submiƩed that the present Writ PeƟƟon be dismissed being without merit. 8. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. 9. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoners. 10. The respondents have filed wriƩen statement dated 16.09.2019 wherein in paras 2 and 3, it has been categorically stated as follows: - “2. That the present writ peƟƟon filed by the peƟƟoners is against the law and facts and the same is not maintainable. Vide the present writ peƟƟon, the peƟƟoners have sought relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to allow the peƟƟoners to conƟnue in service Ɵll arrival of regular candidates. In this regard, it is NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 5 - submiƩed that the peƟƟoners have concealed the material facts from the Hon'ble court knowingly and intenƟonally. It is brought to the noƟce of Hon'ble Court that the peƟƟoners are not working under the establishment of this office. They have been deployed by contractor/agency who had engaged them at their own level were dispensed off during March, 2019. Moreover, no salary is paid by the department to the PeƟƟoners. Further, it is brought out that the Govt. of Haryana had appointed regular employees/candidate against the sancƟoned vacant post in whole of the State of Haryana through Subordinate SelecƟon Board and accordingly 56 Nos. Group-D regular employees had joined their duty in the office of the answering respondent during January-2019 and the services of the persons deployed by contractor/agency, who had engaged them at their own level were dispensed off during March, 2019. This fact is very much in the knowledge of the peƟƟoners. Accordingly, the services of the contractual/ agency who had engaged them were dispensed off as the regular candidates had joined. Hence, the peƟƟoners have no cause of acƟon to file the present writ peƟƟon and the same deserves dismissal. Moreover, the peƟƟoners have not impleaded the contractor/agency as necessary party in this case. 3. That the peƟƟoners have also prayed for direcƟng the respondent to grant minimum of regular pay scale to the peƟƟoners from the date of their appointment. In this regard, it is once again brought to the noƟce of Hon'ble Court at the cost of repeƟƟon that the peƟƟoners are not working under the establishment of this office. They have been deployed by contractor/agency who had engaged them at their own level. Further, the answering respondent has never issued any appointment leƩer nor the peƟƟoners were directly working under the control of answering respondents. The answering respondent had never made any payment in the name of peƟƟoners. Moreover, there is no record of any work done available on the books of respondent. Hence, the peƟƟoners are not enƟtled to get any claim from the respondents. As the peƟƟoners have no cause of acƟon to file the present writ peƟƟon and the same deserves dismissal.” 11. No replicaƟon has been filed by the peƟƟoners to the above said wriƩen statement dated 16.09.2019 refuƟng the above said averments. It thus, amounts to an admission on part of the peƟƟoners to the truth of the above NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 6 - said factual posiƟon. The peƟƟoners have therefore admiƩed that they were not working under the respondent-department; that they had only been deployed by their contractor/agency which had engaged the services of the peƟƟoners at his own level; that no appointment leƩers were issued to the peƟƟoners by the respondent-Department; and the said contractor/agency had dispensed with the services of the peƟƟoners at his own level; that no salary is being paid to the peƟƟoners by the respondent-department; that peƟƟoners have been relieved aŌer regular appointments through proper process have been made against sancƟoned posts; and that there is no service record available of the peƟƟoners. Even no service record has been aƩached by the peƟƟoners along with the present writ peƟƟon. As noted above, peƟƟoners have also not denied that regular appointments have been made by the respondent-department against the sancƟoned posts to which the regularly appointed incumbents have joined duty in January 2019. As such, no right accrues to the peƟƟoners. 12. The present case is squarely covered and the said issue of engagement/deployment through contractor/agency, has been considered and seƩled by a Division Bench of this Court in Nishan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H)(DB): Law Finder DOC Id # 487412 as under: - “Appellants neither selected under Service Rules applicable to be regular employees or the Punjab State nor there was any adverƟsement issued by the State under which they applied for their engagement as regular or contractual employees of the State - It was the service provider who entered into an agreement with the State agency to provide work force on certain terms and condiƟon The service provider selected the candidates and supplied the same to the Government Department-provider is not an agency of the State to make recruitment against the civil posts. The acceptance of claim of the appellants shall amount to back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 7 - mandate of ArƟcles 14 and 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon - No factual or legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ peƟƟons. XXX XXX XXX 16. The State has taken a policy decision for regularizaƟon of services of the contractual employees who were appointed aŌer fulfilling eligibility criteria as per proper procedure. In the case of appellants neither they were selected under the Service Rules applicable to the regular employees of the Punjab State nor there was any adverƟsement issued by the State under which they applied for their engagement as regular or contractual employee of the State. It was the service provider who entered into an agreement with the State agency to provide work force on certain terms and condiƟons. The service provider selected the candidates and supplied the same to the Government Department. A service provider is not an agency of the State to make the recruitment against the civil posts. The selecƟon made by the service provider, if taken as appointment made by the State, will have serious repercussions and violates the rights of thousands of more meritorious candidates who might not have applied for engagement by a Service Provider but would definitely be keen to seek public employment under the State. The acceptance of claim of the appellants shall thus amount to back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of ArƟcles 14 and 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon.” 13. The said view of the Division Bench has been reiterated by this Court in subsequent decision rendered in CWP-20305-2021 Ɵtle as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 28.09.2022 wherein it is held as under: “The peƟƟoner is an outsourced employee. It is seƩled law that no writ peƟƟon would lie against an outsourcing agency, as it is not an authority in terms of ArƟcle 12 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(11) RCR (Civil) 262, wherein it has been held that the service provider who has selected the candidates for work in the government department, is not an agency of the State. The appellants therein were neither selected under any service rules applicable to regular employees of the State of Punjab nor did they apply under any adverƟsement for their appointment as contractual or regular employees of the state. It was further held that the acceptance of the claim of the appellants therein for conƟnuaƟon of services NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15154-2019 (O&M) - 8 - would amount to a back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of ArƟcles 14 and 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. In the case of Anmol Garg and another versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP No. 29655 of 2018, decided on 28.11.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ peƟƟon preferred by an employee engaged through outsourcing agency which was upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No. 1910 of 2018, decided on 10.12.2018 and the operaƟve part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a license under the contract to supply manpower held there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The principle being canvassed before us applies only in case there is a privity of contract between the employee and the employer. In the case in hand, the appellant was an employee of the service provider. The benefit of the said principle is not liable to be extended to her and, thus, we do not find any illegality commiƩed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ peƟƟon." Reference can also be made to the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of 'Vikas versus The State of Haryana and others' bearing CWP No. 19762 of 2018, decided on 11.12.2019, 'Kailash Chand and others versus Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and others', bearing CWP No.21345 of 2021, decided on 18.01.2022 and 'Naresh Kumar and others versus Haryana State Warehousing CorporaƟon and others', bearing CWP No.17454 of 2020, decided on 02.12.2020, wherein similar peƟƟons of outsourcing employees were also dismissed.” 14. Learned counsel for the peƟƟoners is unable to dispute the above said factual and legal posiƟon. ConsequenƟally, the present Civil Writ PeƟƟon stands dismissed. 15. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 08.07.2026 JUDGE N Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh