IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 115 Bijender Singh and others State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, primarily Certiorari (Annexure P date, whereby their services as through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam (HKRN) dispensed with. illegal, perverse and contrary to the Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 Deployment Policy by this Court vide orders dated 22.01.2026 CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20830 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision : Bijender Singh and others Versus Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ajay Poonia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed the present writ Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, primarily Certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dated (Annexure P-9) and the consequential r date, whereby their services as Beldar/Group through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam (HKRN) dispensed with. It is pleaded that the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and contrary to the Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 Deployment Policy, and in violation of the interim directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 24.12.2025 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-5), despite the availability of vacant posts 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20830 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.07.2026 …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, primarily in the nature of for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 27.05.2026 and the consequential relieving orders of the even Beldar/Group-'D' employees engaged through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam (HKRN) have been that the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, the HKRN , and in violation of the interim directions issued 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) and the availability of vacant posts VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document within the same District/Circle; further writ of the respondents to reinstate/continue them in service by adjusting them against the available vacant posts within the same District/Circle in accordance wi Deployment Policy and the directions issued by this Court. A further direction has been sought for grant of continuity of service, protection of service, arrears of salary/wages and all consequential service benefits arising from the alleged illegal relieving of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned speaking order dated 27.05.2026 along with a direction to permit them to continue in service or, if already relieved, to allow them to rejoin duties during the pendency of the writ petition, subject to the final outcome of the case. 2. petitioners that the petitioners were initially engaged on contractual basis between of the State Government, their services came to be regulated through HKRN w they have been continuously discharging their duties and no adverse material regarding their work or conduct has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred the State Government framed the Policy, 2022 Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 with effect from CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) within the same District/Circle; further writ of the respondents to reinstate/continue them in service by adjusting them against the available vacant posts within the same District/Circle in accordance with the provisions of the 2024 Act, the HKRN Deployment Policy and the directions issued by this Court. A further direction has been sought for grant of continuity of service, protection of service, arrears of salary/wages and all consequential service fits arising from the alleged illegal relieving of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned speaking order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-9) and the consequential re along with a direction to permit them to continue in service or, if already relieved, to allow them to rejoin duties during the pendency of the writ petition, subject to the final outcome of the case. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially engaged on contractual basis between 01.08.2020 and 01.04.2022 of the State Government, their services came to be regulated through HKRN without any break in service. According to the petitioners, they have been continuously discharging their duties and no adverse material regarding their work or conduct has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred the State Government framed the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022 and thereafter enacted the Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 with effect from 15.08.2024 with the object of providing se 2 within the same District/Circle; further writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate/continue them in service by adjusting them against the available vacant posts within the same District/Circle th the provisions of the 2024 Act, the HKRN Deployment Policy and the directions issued by this Court. A further direction has been sought for grant of continuity of service, protection of service, arrears of salary/wages and all consequential service fits arising from the alleged illegal relieving of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned speaking order dated and the consequential relieving orders, along with a direction to permit them to continue in service or, if already relieved, to allow them to rejoin duties during the pendency of the writ petition, subject to the final outcome of the case. alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially engaged on contractual 01.08.2020 and 01.04.2022 and, pursuant to the policy of the State Government, their services came to be regulated through ithout any break in service. According to the petitioners, they have been continuously discharging their duties and no adverse material regarding their work or conduct has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred that Deployment of Contractual Persons and thereafter enacted the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, which came into force with the object of providing security of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document service to eligible contractual employees. According to the petitioners, they satisfy the conditions prescribed under the said Act and are entitled to its protection. It is also pleaded that the respondents had earlier relieved similarly situated ground of joining of regular employees. Such action was challenged before this Court in State of Haryana and others) decided vide common judgment dated relieving orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter by passing fresh speaking orders while maintaining continuity of service till such reconsideration. It is further pleaded that, pursuant thereto, th duties, though the said orders were subsequently withdrawn, leading to another round of litigation wherein this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2026 after passing 3. dated 11.05.2026 submitted their replies on passed the impugne holding that no sanctioned vacant posts were available and that certain employees had become surplus, and consequently relieved the petitioners from service. 4. Court contending that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering their replies, the provisions of the CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) service to eligible contractual employees. According to the petitioners, they satisfy the conditions prescribed under the said Act and are entitled to its protection. It is also pleaded that the respondents had earlier relieved similarly situated ground of joining of regular employees. Such action was challenged before this Court in CWP No.7437 of 2025 (Renu and others v. State of Haryana and others) and connected matters, which were decided vide common judgment dated relieving orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter by passing fresh speaking orders while maintaining continuity of service till such reconsideration. It is further pleaded that, pursuant thereto, the petitioners were permitted to rejoin duties, though the said orders were subsequently withdrawn, leading to another round of litigation wherein this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2026, again directed the respondents to reconsider the matter after passing fresh reasoned orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Show Cause Notices 11.05.2026 were issued to the petitioners, to which they submitted their replies on 12.05.2026. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned speaking order dated holding that no sanctioned vacant posts were available and that certain employees had become surplus, and consequently relieved the petitioners from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have appro Court contending that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering their replies, the provisions of the 3 service to eligible contractual employees. According to the petitioners, they satisfy the conditions prescribed under the said Act and are entitled to its protection. It is also pleaded that the respondents HKRN employees on the ground of joining of regular employees. Such action was challenged CWP No.7437 of 2025 (Renu and others v. and connected matters, which were decided vide common judgment dated 24.12.2025, whereby the relieving orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter by passing fresh speaking orders while maintaining continuity of service till such reconsideration. It is further e petitioners were permitted to rejoin duties, though the said orders were subsequently withdrawn, leading to another round of litigation wherein this Court, vide order dated , again directed the respondents to reconsider the matter fresh reasoned orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Show Cause Notices were issued to the petitioners, to which they . Thereafter, the respondents d speaking order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-9) holding that no sanctioned vacant posts were available and that certain employees had become surplus, and consequently relieved the Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court contending that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering their replies, the provisions of the Haryana VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 Deployment Policy District/Circle, and the earlier directions issued by this Court. It is further their case that similarly situated employees have been granted interim protection in other connected writ petitions and, therefore, they are also entitled to seek quashing of the impugned speaking order and consequential relieving orders, along with a direction for their reinstatement/continuation in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. 5. the requirements and conditions as mandated under the Act, 2024. Thus, the impugned action is inequitable, arbitrary and discriminatory; as, once the petitioners have completed period of 5 years of service as stipulated under the Act, 2024, the petitioners are eligible for protection under the Act. However, the same has not been considered. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed. 6. opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P speaking order and gives cogent reasons as to why contractual services of the petitioners impugned order has been passed in terms of Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. However, the same have not been CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 Deployment Policy, the availability of vacant post District/Circle, and the earlier directions issued by this Court. It is further their case that similarly situated employees have been granted interim protection in other connected writ petitions and, therefore, they are also entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned speaking order and consequential relieving orders, along with a direction for their reinstatement/continuation in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. Learned counsel argues that petitioners are fulfilling all the requirements and conditions as mandated under the Act, 2024. Thus, the impugned action is inequitable, arbitrary and discriminatory; as, once the petitioners have completed period of 5 s of service as stipulated under the Act, 2024, the petitioners are eligible for protection under the Act. However, the same has not been considered. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P speaking order and gives cogent reasons as to why contractual services of the petitioners are no longer required. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed in terms of Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. However, the same have not been 4 Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, the HKRN , the availability of vacant posts within the same District/Circle, and the earlier directions issued by this Court. It is further their case that similarly situated employees have been granted interim protection in other connected writ petitions and, therefore, similar relief. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned speaking order and consequential relieving orders, along with a direction for their reinstatement/continuation in service with continuity of service and all Learned counsel argues that petitioners are fulfilling all the requirements and conditions as mandated under the Act, 2024. Thus, the impugned action is inequitable, arbitrary and discriminatory; as, once the petitioners have completed period of 5 s of service as stipulated under the Act, 2024, the petitioners are eligible for protection under the Act. However, the same has not been considered. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P-9) is a speaking order and gives cogent reasons as to why contractual are no longer required. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed in terms of Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. However, the same have not been VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document challenged by the petitioners. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be dismis 7. parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent 8. appointed as Beldars/Group 01.4.2022; whereafter services of the petitioners were converted under the HKRNL. Petitioners have claimed protection under the Act, 2024 which is available for contractual employees, who have rendered 5 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioners that as they were appointed on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022; therefore, as of November 2024, and on the date of relieving i.e. 27.5.2026 petition completed 5 years’ service; and, therefore, under the Act, 2024, they could not have been relieved. 9. to be correct in the first instance, however, the same is misconceived. Section 3 of the employee who, (i) CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) challenged by the petitioners. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be dismissed being without merit. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent-State. It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially appointed as Beldars/Group-D on contractual basis since 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022; whereafter services of the petitioners were converted under the HKRNL. Petitioners have claimed protection under the Act, 2024 s available for contractual employees, who have rendered 5 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioners that as they were appointed on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022; therefore, as of November 2024, and on the date of relieving i.e. 27.5.2026 petition completed 5 years’ service; and, therefore, under the Act, 2024, they could not have been relieved. Although the said submission of the petitioners appears to be correct in the first instance, however, the same is misconceived. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: – “3. The eligible contractual employee shall be an employee who,- (a) has been engaged on contract by the Government Organization and is in the service of such Government Organization on the appointed date and receiving remuneration upto Rs. 50,000/ (b) is deployed by the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam under the Deployment of Contractual Persons 5 challenged by the petitioners. It is accordingly prayed that the present sed being without merit. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they were initially D on contractual basis since 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022; whereafter services of the petitioners were converted under the HKRNL. Petitioners have claimed protection under the Act, 2024 s available for contractual employees, who have rendered 5 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioners that as they were appointed on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022; therefore, as of November 2024, and on the date of relieving i.e. 27.5.2026 petitioners had completed 5 years’ service; and, therefore, under the Act, 2024, they Although the said submission of the petitioners appears to be correct in the first instance, however, the same is misconceived. 3. The eligible contractual employee shall be an has been engaged on contract by the Government Organization and is in the service of such Government Organization on the appointed date and upto Rs. 50,000/- per month; or is deployed by the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam under the Deployment of Contractual Persons VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (ii) Explanation 1. Explanation follows: 10. CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) Policy, 2022 and is in the service of a Government Organization on the appointed date; has completed at least five years Government Organization on full time basis as on the appointed date. Explanation 1.- The period of service shall be considered as the period for which remuneration was made, directly or indirectly, by the Government Organization to the eligible contractual employee and shall include the period of any leave approved by the competent authority. Explanation 2. For the purposes of calculation of the number of years of engagement, a contractual employee who has received remuneration for at least 240 days in a calendar year shall be deemed to have worked for the entire year, but shall not include an employee who, (i) has been engaged under Centrally Sponsored Schemes paid in part or full by the Central Government; or (ii) has been engaged on honorariu (iii) has been paid remuneration for service rendered on a part time basis by the Government Organization; or (iv) has attained the age of fifty appointed date; or (v) has been terminated or removed by the appropriate authority on or before the date of commencement of this Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines ‘appointed date’ “(a)“appointed date” means the 15 A conjoint reading of the above said S.3(ii) and S.2(a) 6 Policy, 2022 and is in the service of a Government Organization on the appointed date; has completed at least five years service in the Government Organization on full time basis as on the The period of service shall be considered as the period for which remuneration was made, directly or indirectly, by the Government Organization to the ble contractual employee and shall include the period of any leave approved by the competent authority. For the purposes of calculation of the number of years of engagement, a contractual employee who has received 40 days in a calendar year shall be deemed to have worked for the entire year, but shall not include an employee who,- has been engaged under Centrally Sponsored Schemes paid in part or full by the Central has been engaged on honorarium basis;or has been paid remuneration for service rendered on a part time basis by the Government has attained the age of fifty-eight years on the has been terminated or removed by the appropriate authority on or before the date of commencement of this Act.” Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines ‘appointed date’ as (a)“appointed date” means the 15thAugust,2024;” A conjoint reading of the above said S.3(ii) and S.2(a) VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document shows that in order to be eligible for protection under the Act, 2024, petitioners ought to have been appointed before the cut 15.08.2019; appointed only on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022. As such, petitioners are not eligible under the Act, and no error can be found in the impugned orders. 11. of the 2024 Act; the issue arose as to h newly selected employees which have been appointed through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘HSSC’), are to be accommodated against the posts which are already occupied by the contractual employees. Pursuant t HSSC had conducted recruitment for Group D posts; and posting orders were issued on 24.12.2024 in respect of selected candidates. Several departments of the respondent the ground that contractua said posts, and no vacancies were available. 12. situation, that the Government of Haryana issued Instructions dated 27.12.2024 to resolve the above situation and to ensure joining of newly selected regular employees, while simultaneously protecting contractual employees covered under the 2024 Act. Vide Instructions dated 27.12.2024, it is directed that: CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) shows that in order to be eligible for protection under the Act, 2024, petitioners ought to have been appointed before the cut 15.08.2019; whereas as per their own case, the petitioners appointed only on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022. As such, petitioners are not eligible under the Act, and no error can be found in the impugned It further needs to be clarified that after the promulgation of the 2024 Act; the issue arose as to how and in what manner are the newly selected employees which have been appointed through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘HSSC’), are to be accommodated against the posts which are already occupied by the contractual employees. Pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/2023, HSSC had conducted recruitment for Group D posts; and posting orders were issued on 24.12.2024 in respect of selected candidates. Several departments of the respondent-State had raised objections on the ground that contractual employees were already occupying the said posts, and no vacancies were available. It in this background when faced with this peculiar situation, that the Government of Haryana issued Instructions dated 27.12.2024 to resolve the above situation and to ensure joining of newly selected regular employees, while simultaneously protecting tractual employees covered under the 2024 Act. Vide Instructions dated 27.12.2024, it is directed that: 7 shows that in order to be eligible for protection under the Act, 2024, petitioners ought to have been appointed before the cut-off date i.e. whereas as per their own case, the petitioners were appointed only on 01.8.2020 to 01.4.2022. As such, petitioners are not eligible under the Act, and no error can be found in the impugned It further needs to be clarified that after the promulgation ow and in what manner are the newly selected employees which have been appointed through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘HSSC’), are to be accommodated against the posts which are already occupied by the o the Advertisement No.1/2023, HSSC had conducted recruitment for Group D posts; and posting orders were issued on 24.12.2024 in respect of selected candidates. State had raised objections on l employees were already occupying the said posts, and no vacancies were available. It in this background when faced with this peculiar situation, that the Government of Haryana issued Instructions dated 27.12.2024 to resolve the above situation and to ensure joining of newly selected regular employees, while simultaneously protecting tractual employees covered under the 2024 Act. Vide the said Instructions dated 27.12.2024, it is directed that: – VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Regular HSSC Candidates: be permitted to join. Department was not authorized to deny the joining merely working. Contractual employees (Protected): rendered five years of Service up to cut removed. Their cases were to be adjusted; employees engaged before cut-off date of 15.08.2019 will not be relieved. HKRNL Employees: were directed to be relieved. First in First Out (FIFO): amongst the unprotected HKRNL/Haryana Kaushal Roz Ltd., the employee having longest length of engagement would be relieved first. 13. joining to regularly selected candidates, citing non vacancies and sanctioned posts. 14. 15.01.2025 was issued directing that: Joining cannot be denied: selected candidates merely because contractual employees are working. CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) Regular HSSC Candidates: All newly selected employees were to be permitted to join. Department was not authorized to deny the joining merely on the ground that contractual employees are already Contractual employees (Protected): Those employees who had rendered five years of Service up to cut-off date were not to be removed. Their cases were to be adjusted; employees engaged before off date of 15.08.2019 will not be relieved. HKRNL Employees: Surplus employees who could not be adjusted were directed to be relieved. First in First Out (FIFO): The said Circular further prescribed that amongst the unprotected HKRNL/Haryana Kaushal Roz Ltd., the employee having longest length of engagement would be first. Subsequently, certain Departments continued refusing joining to regularly selected candidates, citing non vacancies and sanctioned posts. Consequentially, a further clarificatory Circular dated 15.01.2025 was issued directing that: - Joining cannot be denied: Department cannot refuse joining to selected candidates merely because contractual employees are 8 All newly selected employees were to be permitted to join. Department was not authorized to deny the on the ground that contractual employees are already Those employees who had off date were not to be removed. Their cases were to be adjusted; employees engaged before off date of 15.08.2019 will not be relieved. Surplus employees who could not be adjusted The said Circular further prescribed that amongst the unprotected HKRNL/Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Ltd., the employee having longest length of engagement would be Subsequently, certain Departments continued refusing joining to regularly selected candidates, citing non-availability of equentially, a further clarificatory Circular dated Department cannot refuse joining to selected candidates merely because contractual employees are VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Vacancies verified: vacancy data available on designated portal. Thus, Department cannot claim non 15. order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P as to why services of the petitioners are no longer required, as under: CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) Vacancies verified: Posting orders are issued after considering vacancy data available on designated portal. Thus, Department cannot claim non-availability of vacancy. All the aforesaid facts also find mention in the impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P-9) thereby giving co as to why services of the petitioners are no longer required, as under: “Whereas Sh. Bijender S/o Sh. Chattar Singh had filed a Civil Writ Petition Nos.4111 & 5401 of 2026 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh challenging 09.01.2025 vide which they were relieved being surplus on arrival/joining of regular Group- The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide judgement dated 24.12.2025 in connected matter. The op part of judgement dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 7437 of 2025 titled as Renu Vs. State of Haryana and other connected CWPs is reproduced as under: The respective counsel for the petitioner(s) are also ad idem to the stand taken by learned Advoc General and have shown satisfaction, therefore, they do not wish to press the instant petition(s) any further. In the light of the assurance tendered by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, and the concurrence of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is persuaded that the present writ petition no longer requires adjudication on merits. The impugned relieving orders are hereby set aside, and till a fresh decision is taken, the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with, and wherever the petitioners have not been permitted to rejoin duties, they shall be taken back forthwith so that their humble means of livelihood are not inherited and the sustenance of their families is preserved. In case the petitioners have not submitted any representation so far to the State Government or the concerned Head of the Department, the present writ petitions shall be treated as representations and the cases shall be decided afresh after taking into account the pleas raised therein, in accordance with law. The respondents shall, with due regard to the dignity of the petitioners and the government statutory framework, reconsider each case individually, including the question of entitlement to minimum wages, and pass reasoned orders strictly 9 orders are issued after considering vacancy data available on designated portal. Thus, Department cannot All the aforesaid facts also find mention in the impugned 9) thereby giving cogent reasons as to why services of the petitioners are no longer required, as under: - Whereas Sh. Bijender S/o Sh. Chattar Singh had filed a & 5401 of 2026 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 vide which they were relieved being surplus on D employees in the department. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide judgement dated 24.12.2025 in connected matter. The operative part of judgement dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 7437 of 2025 titled as Renu Vs. State of Haryana and other connected The respective counsel for the petitioner(s) are also ad idem to the stand taken by learned Advocate General and have shown satisfaction, therefore, they do not wish to press the instant petition(s) any In the light of the assurance tendered by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, and the concurrence of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is persuaded that the present writ petition no longer requires adjudication on merits. The impugned relieving orders are hereby set aside, and till a fresh decision is taken, the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with, and rever the petitioners have not been permitted to rejoin duties, they shall be taken back forthwith so that their humble means of livelihood are not inherited and the sustenance of their families is In case the petitioners have not submitted any representation so far to the State Government or the concerned Head of the Department, the present writ petitions shall be treated as representations and the cases shall be decided afresh after taking into account the pleas raised therein, in accordance The respondents shall, with due regard to the dignity of the petitioners and the government statutory framework, reconsider each case individually, including the question of entitlement to minimum wages, and pass reasoned orders strictly VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) in accordance with law, in both its letter and spirit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Until such fresh orders are passed the continuity of service of the petitioners shall remain undisturbed. Further wherever the pet their salaries, the same shall be released along with arrears for the period they have worked In view of above, all the aforesaid petitions stand disposed of. In compliance of the above said order the case is re examined and submitted that the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Human Resources Department vide Memo No. 01/39/2023 2CC-1 dated 15.01.2025 has observed that Departments are not allowing newly recruited Group Cadre employees to join duty due to the employees are posted against the said posts. However, the detailed instructions in this regard have already been issued vide Mema No. 01/39/2023-2CC-1 dated 27.12.2024 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Group- to be allowed to join against the allotted posts. Further, if the post which has already been occupied by the contractual employees of Group-D level engaged through Outsourcing policy Part level-l employee engaged through HKRNL. or contractual employee and who was initially engaged before 15 August, 2019 in any of the Organizations under Haryana Government, such employee will not be relieved and his/her case will be processed by the concerned Department for grant of benefit of security of service under the Haryana Contract Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024. If after the joining of newly recruited Groupd Common cadre employees and adjustment of contractual employees getting benefit of security of service under the haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 and the vacant posts are not available at District level, then the contractual employees initially engaged through HKRNL will be relieved by applying the principle of 'first in first out' ie. the contractual employee with the most length engagement to be firstly relieved. In compliance of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court judgement dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 7437 of 2025, Sh. Bijender Petitioner was allowed to re rejoined his duty on 17.03.2026. Further to reconsider each case individually and to pass reasoned orders, the above named petitioner has asked to justify his entitlement/eligibility strictly in 10 dance with law, in both its letter and spirit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Until such fresh orders are passed the continuity of service of the petitioners shall remain undisturbed. Further wherever the petitioners have not been paid their salaries, the same shall be released along with arrears for the period they have worked In view of above, all the aforesaid petitions stand In compliance of the above said order the case is re- submitted that the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Human Resources Department vide Memo No. 1 dated 15.01.2025 has observed that Departments are not allowing newly recruited Group-D Common Cadre employees to join duty due to the reason that contractual employees are posted against the said posts. However, the detailed instructions in this regard have already been issued vide 1 dated 27.12.2024 wherein it was -D common cadre employees are to be allowed to join against the allotted posts. Further, if the post which has already been occupied by the contractual employees of D level engaged through Outsourcing policy Part-II or by a l employee engaged through HKRNL. or otherwise by a contractual employee and who was initially engaged before 15 August, 2019 in any of the Organizations under Haryana Government, such employee will not be relieved and his/her case will be processed by the concerned Department for grant of nefit of security of service under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024. If after the joining of newly recruited Groupd Common cadre employees and adjustment of contractual employees getting benefit of security of the haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 and the vacant posts are not available at District level, then the contractual employees initially engaged through HKRNL will be relieved by applying the principle of 'first in e. the contractual employee with the most length . In compliance of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court judgement dated 24.12.2025 passed in CWP No. 7437 of 2025, Sh. Bijender Petitioner was allowed to re-join and accordingly he rejoined his duty on 17.03.2026. Further to reconsider each case individually and to pass reasoned orders, the above named petitioner has asked to justify his entitlement/eligibility strictly in VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. respondents have examined every aspect of the matter threadbare, and passed the impugned order only thereafter. The respondents have duly considered the vacancy position, and passed the impugned order, in mind the rights of the regularly appointed candidates after following due process of selection through HSSC; against those who have rendered contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the 2024 Act; and persons such as CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) accordance with the instructions issued by the com authority. The above named petitioners have submitted their justification the undersigned office on dated 12.05.2026 that they worked in the field at the post of Beldar with honestly and dedication and have all the prescribed education qualificat eligibility required for the position of Beldar. The petitioners have submitted their representation that they should be allowed to continue their service on the post of Beldar in compliance of the order dated 24.12 2025 passed by Hon'ble Punjab & High court. In view of above detailed discussion and in accordance with the instructions issued by Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana letter No. 01/39/2023-2CC-1 dated 27.12.2024 and letter No 01/39/2023-2CC-1 dated 15.01.2025 after joining of r D (Beldar), there is no vacant post of Beldar in Loharu Water Services Division, Loharu. The details of vacant post of Group (Beldar) is tabulated below:- Sr. No. Total number of sanctioned post of Beldars Regular Beldar 1 100 100 Keeping in view of above due to the non availability of vacancy of respective post in Loharu Water Services Division, Loharu the services of Sh. Bijender S/o Sh. Chattar Singh HKRNL Beldar is hereby relieved with immediate effect. I pass the order accordingly on the basis of record. Compliance be reported immediately. From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the respondents have examined every aspect of the matter threadbare, and passed the impugned order only thereafter. The respondents have duly considered the vacancy position, and passed the impugned order, in mind the rights of the regularly appointed candidates after following due process of selection through HSSC; against those who have rendered contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the 2024 Act; and persons such as the petitioner who have not been appointed before 11 accordance with the instructions issued by the competent The above named petitioners have submitted their justification the undersigned office on dated 12.05.2026 that they worked in the field at the post of Beldar with honestly and dedication and have all the prescribed education qualification and eligibility required for the position of Beldar. The petitioners have submitted their representation that they should be allowed to continue their service on the post of Beldar in compliance of the order dated 24.12 2025 passed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana In view of above detailed discussion and in accordance with the instructions issued by Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana 1 dated 27.12.2024 and letter No 1 dated 15.01.2025 after joining of regular Group D (Beldar), there is no vacant post of Beldar in Loharu Water Services Division, Loharu. The details of vacant post of Group-D Regular Beldar Number of Beldar covered under Security Act & HKRN Vacancy 100 07 7 No.excess Keeping in view of above due to the non availability of vacancy of respective post in Loharu Water Services Division, Loharu the services of Sh. Bijender S/o Sh. Chattar Singh HKRNL Beldar is hereby relieved with immediate effect. I pass the order accordingly on the basis of record. Compliance be reported immediately.” From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the respondents have examined every aspect of the matter threadbare, and passed the impugned order only thereafter. The respondents have duly considered the vacancy position, and passed the impugned order, keeping in mind the rights of the regularly appointed candidates after following due process of selection through HSSC; against those who have rendered contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the 2024 the petitioner who have not been appointed before From a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the respondents have examined every aspect of the matter threadbare, and passed the impugned order only thereafter. The respondents have duly keeping in mind the rights of the regularly appointed candidates after following due process of selection through HSSC; against those who have rendered contractual service for five years and are therefore protected under the 2024 the petitioner who have not been appointed before VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the cut-off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P respondent relieving the petitioners from the post of Beldars. The impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable construction of selection, as also rationale. 17. petitioners against non the afore 15.01.2025. Very importantly, the said Instructions have not been challenged by the petitioner. It is also clear that pet after the cut off date of 15.08.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not available to the petitioners. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of the petitioners have been relieved as there is no available sanctioned posts after adjusting regular appointees and the protected contractual 18. is also not denied by the petitioners that prior to passing of the impugned order, petitioners were granted an opportunity of personal hearing. 19. 20. 21. July 13, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-20830-2026 (O & M) off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P respondent-State has delineated the factual position; as relieving the petitioners from the post of Beldars. The impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable construction of selection, as also rationale. From the above facts, it is clear that continuation of the ioners against non-available sanctioned post, would be in violation of the afore-referred Government Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. Very importantly, the said Instructions have not been challenged by the petitioner. It is also clear that pet after the cut off date of 15.08.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not available to the petitioners. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of the petitioners have been relieved as there is no vailable sanctioned posts after adjusting regular appointees and the protected contractual employees. The petitioners are unable to dispute the above said position. It is also not denied by the petitioners that prior to passing of the impugned petitioners were granted an opportunity of personal hearing. As such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders. Present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 12 off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 27.5.2026 (Annexure P-9), State has delineated the factual position; as also the reasons for relieving the petitioners from the post of Beldars. The impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable construction of selection, From the above facts, it is clear that continuation of the available sanctioned post, would be in violation of referred Government Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. Very importantly, the said Instructions have not been challenged by the petitioner. It is also clear that petitioners were appointed after the cut off date of 15.08.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not available to the petitioners. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of the petitioners have been relieved as there is no vailable sanctioned posts after adjusting regular appointees and the The petitioners are unable to dispute the above said position. It is also not denied by the petitioners that prior to passing of the impugned petitioners were granted an opportunity of personal hearing. As such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders. Present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE off date; thereafter, relieving/impugned orders of surplus employees 9), also the reasons for relieving the petitioners from the post of Beldars. The impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable construction of selection, From the above facts, it is clear that continuation of the available sanctioned post, would be in violation of referred Government Instructions dated 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. Very importantly, the said Instructions have not been itioners were appointed after the cut off date of 15.08.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not available to the petitioners. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of the petitioners have been relieved as there is no vailable sanctioned posts after adjusting regular appointees and the The petitioners are unable to dispute the above said position. It is also not denied by the petitioners that prior to passing of the impugned VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 18.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document