IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 CWP-11306-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 16.07.2026 Sumit … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ravinder Singh Joon, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus direcƟng the respondents to reinstate the peƟƟoner to the post of Computer Operator-cum-Clerk on contractual basis Ɵll regular appointment is made as the services of the peƟƟoner were terminated from the post of Computer operator without giving any prior noƟce, whereas the sancƟon vacant post is lying there in the respondent department, in which the peƟƟoner was working. The said acƟon of the respondent has been done only with intenƟon to replace the peƟƟoner with another temporary/contract employee as another employee is being given sancƟon for the post of Clerk, i.e. Annexure P-3 which is highly illegal and arbitrary, therefore, deserves to be set aside. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11306-2019 (O&M) - 2 - 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that in pursuance to an adverƟsement issued by the State Government, in November 2011, the peƟƟoner was appointed as a Computer Operator in the respondent Department on contractual basis. Vide sancƟon leƩers issued from November 2011 Ɵll November 2012, the peƟƟoner conƟnued on the said post. From December 2012 to February 2015, the peƟƟoner was in the same department on contractual basis through an agency, namely, Vega Management, as tender for contractual appointment had been given to the said agency. From March 2015 up to May 2015, the peƟƟoner was in the same Department through another agency, namely, Army Enterprises. From June 2015 to January 2016, the peƟƟoner was again appointed by the Department through sancƟon. From February 2016 to April 2016 the peƟƟoner was appointed through an agency namely, Army Enterprises. From May 2016 to July 2016, the peƟƟoner was appointed in the respondent department through sancƟon. From August 2016 to May 2017 the peƟƟoner was appointed in respondent department through an agency namely Gill Enterprises. From June 2017 to July 2018 the peƟƟoner was appointed to the respondent department through an agency namely Army Enterprises. From August 2018 to January 2019 the peƟƟoner was appointed to the respondent department through an agency namely Yuva Global India Security and Manpower Service. Ld. Counsel submits that from the above facts, it is clear that the peƟƟoner has worked as a Computer Operator with the respondents for the past almost eight years from November 2011 to 31.01.2019 to the complete saƟsfacƟon of the respondents without any complaint. The peƟƟoner has been NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11306-2019 (O&M) - 3 - appointed aŌer following the due process of law, aŌer inviƟng applicaƟons; and when the peƟƟoner was found to be meritorious, peƟƟoner was appointed to the post, although on contractual basis. Yet, the services of the peƟƟoner have been terminated by the respondents vide order dated 31.01.2019 without any noƟce and without any departmental order. It is further submiƩed that there are sancƟoned vacant posts lying with the respondent Department. Thus, it is clear that the respondents wish to replace the services of the peƟƟoner with a similar set of employees, which is not permissible as per law. The peƟƟoner had even submiƩed a representaƟon (Annexure P-6) but to no avail. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed, and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued, direcƟng the respondents to reinstate the peƟƟoner on the post of computer Operator- cum-Clerk on contractual basis Ɵll the appointment of regular employee in the PWD B&R Department as the services of the peƟƟoner were terminated from the post of Computer Operator without giving any prior noƟce, whereas the sancƟon vacant post is lying there in the respondent department, in which the peƟƟoner was working. The said acƟon of the respondent has been done only with intenƟon with to replace the peƟƟoner with another temporary/contract employee, as another employee is being given sancƟon for the post of Clerk, i.e. Annexure P-3 which is highly illegal and arbitrary, therefore deserve to be set aside. 3. Per contra ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner and stated that it is the own case of the peƟƟoner NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11306-2019 (O&M) - 4 - that he has been appointed through contractor. Therefore, as per established legal posiƟon, the present peƟƟon is not maintainable. 4. 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. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 6. As enumerated hereinabove, it is the admiƩed case of the peƟƟoner himself that he has been engaged by the respondent Department from Ɵme to Ɵme through different contractors. As such, present Civil Writ peƟƟon is not maintainable. In similar circumstances, this Court in case of CWP- 1822-2019 Ɵtled as Yamin and others vs. State of Haryana and other decided on 19.08.2020, held that no direcƟon can be issued to the State of Haryana to allow the peƟƟoner to conƟnue in the absence of any master-servant relaƟonship as State of Haryana is not the employer of the peƟƟoner therein. In the said case also, the peƟƟoner therein had been working for the Health Department of the Govt. of Haryana through a private contractor. It is seƩled principle of law that writ only can be issued against the State or any instrumentality of State. As a private contractor is not the instrumentality of the State, therefore, writ peƟƟon is not maintainable. The right remedy for the peƟƟoner would perhaps be to approach the Labor Court against the contractor, if so advised. In the present Writ PeƟƟon, even the contractor(s) have not been impleaded by the peƟƟoner, who would reply to the peƟƟoner's allegaƟons that juniors have been retained. The above-said legal posiƟon has been reiterated by this Court in Nishan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (Punjab and Haryana):Law Finder Doc Id#2736781. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11306-2019 (O&M) - 5 - 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal posiƟon, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed. 8. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh