107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.978 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 Mohit and others …Appellants Versus Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilshad S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Batth, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/writ-petitioners were appointed through Outsourcing Agency in the integrated Command Control Centre Smart City, Chandigarh. He, further, submits that although the Smart City Project has been closed at the level of the Central Government, the State has decided to transfer the ICCC Project and E-Governance Project to Department of IT, UT, Chandigarh but since both the Projects are in O&M phase with the remaining O&M allocated funds, it was decided to temporarily hand over the same to the respondent-MCC. He also submits that the writ-petitioners should be allowed to continue on the posts on which they have been working as Office Supervisors, Receptionist-cum-Operators, Peons, Gardeners, Sweepers and NEETU RANI 2025.04.29 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.978 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Security Guards and they should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. 2. Learned counsel appearing for MCC has pointed out that the Project has been closed and it is on temporarily basis that the MCC is continuing the O&M phase for which they are using their own employees and have not given out to fill up the posts by any other outsourcing agency. 3. In view thereto, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the writ- petition of the petitioners. The grievance, if any, with regard to their employers and their termination has to be raised by the individual person before the concerned Court of competent jurisdiction as the remedy lies elsewhere. 4. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE 25.04.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No NEETU RANI 2025.04.29 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD