CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Ankit Sharma ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent no.3, being contrary to the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 36101 of 2025 "Ankit Sharma V/s State of Haryana and others" decided on 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) and also contrary to the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act 2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby it has been stated that the employees, who completed 5 years service on 15.08.2024, are to be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation. As the petitioner is deemed to be in service in terms of the directions given in CWP no. 3267 of 2025 decided on 24.12.2025, particularly when the impugned relieving order was set aside and the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 2 of 12 benefit of continuity in service remained uninterrupted till the passing of the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) respectively; and further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to take him back in service and also accord benefit of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act 2024 and grant him all the consequential benefits, as the petitioner was appointed from 01.11.2019 respectively against the sanctioned posts through outsourcing and thereafter through the respondent No.4. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had joined respondent-Department as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 01.11.2019 on outsourcing basis. Petitioner was ported to Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HKRNL”) w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Vide order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was appointed against sanctioned post through outsourcing and, thereafter, through HKRNL. 3. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Services) Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2024”), those persons, who have completed 5 years’ service upto 15.08.2024 are allowed to continue with their job upto the age of superannuation. It is contended that as the petitioner had joined on 01.11.2019 and had completed 5 years of service up to 15.8.2024, therefore, he was entitled to protection under the Act, 2024 and had to be permitted to continue till the age of superannuation. However, on dated 31.03.2025, petitioner was verbally DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 3 of 12 stopped from performing his duty without any written order or formal notice. It is submitted that Respondents had neither advertised fresh vacancies for the post of Computer Operator nor claimed that services of the petitioner were stopped due to surplus of staff. Despite multiple requests, petitioner has not been permitted to continue in service. Accordingly, petitioner had filed CWP No. 36101 of 2025 titled as Ankit Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others which was disposed of alongwith CWP No. 7437 of 2025 titled as Renu and others vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected Writ Petitions. Writ Petition of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 78 amongst connected Writ Petitions. The said CWP No. 7437 of 2025 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4); thereby directing the respondents to take a fresh decision after taking into account the pleas raised therein and by examining case of each petitioner independently and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) has been passed relieving the services of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel argues that petitioner is fulfilling all the requirements and conditions as mandated under the Act, 2024. Thus, the impugned action is inequitable, arbitrary and discriminatory; as, once the petitioner has completed period of 5 years of service as stipulated under the Act, 2024, the petitioner is eligible for protection under the Act. However, the same has not been considered. It is also submitted that pursuant to order dated 24.12.2025, petitioner had DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 4 of 12 continued in Service. For this reason, as well, petitioner could not have been relieved. Even as per Instructions dated 7.8.2024 and 15.1.2025, Petitioner could not have been relieved. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and following prayer be accepted: - “That once their relieving orders have been set aside and the respondents were directed to take him back forthwith in service, then in this case petitioner is deemed to be in service for all intents and purposes and is entitled to continue with his service till attaining the age of superannuation. As he did not complete 5 years on 15.08.2024, but he completed 5 years on 31.10.2024 respectively, when this Hon'ble Court set-aside the relieving order dated 01.04.2025 on 24.12.2025 vide Annexure P-4. Thus, on this score alone, the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6), is liable to be set- aside.” 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) is a speaking order and gives cogent reasons as to why contractual services of the petitioner are no longer required. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed in terms of Instructions dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025. However, the same have not been challenged by the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be dismissed being without merit. 6. No other argument is raised by ld. 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. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 5 of 12 7. The petitioner was initially appointed as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator on contractual basis w.e.f. 01.11.2019. On 01.04.2022 petitioner was ported to HKRNL. Petitioner has claimed protection under the Act of 2024 which is available for contractual employees, who have rendered 5 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioner that as he was appointed on 01.11.2019; therefore, as of November 2024, and on the date of relieving i.e. 31.03.2025 petitioner had completed more than 5 years’ service; and, therefore, under the Act, 2024, he could not have been relieved. 8. Although the said submission of the petitioner appears to be appealing 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,- (i) (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/- per month; or (b) is deployed by the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam under the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022 and is in the service of a Government Organization on the appointed date; (ii) has completed at least five years service in the 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 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 6 of 12 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 honorarium basis; or (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-eight years on the appointed date; or (v) 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 follows: “(a) “appointed date” means the 15th August, 2024;” 9. A conjoint reading of the above said S.3(ii) and S.2(a) shows that in order to be eligible for protection under the Act, 2024, petitioner ought to have completed five years’ full-time service on the appointed date of 15.8.2024 i.e. petitioner ought to have been appointed before the cut off date of 15.08.2019; whereas as per his own case, petitioner was appointed only on 01.11.2019. As such, petitioner is not eligible under the Act. In this context and background, contention of the petitioner that he had been allowed to continue in Service vide order DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 7 of 12 dated 24.12.2025 passed by coordinate Bench in CWP No. 7437 of 2025, is misconceived and is of no benefit to the petitioner. The present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. 10. Further, to buttress his claim, petitioner has relied upon Instructions dated 7.8.2024 and 15.1.2025. However, even the said contention is misconceived. To completely understand the issue, a brief factual background will be helpful in this regard. It needs to be clarified that after the promulgation of the Act, 2024; 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 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. When faced with this peculiar situation, the Government of Haryana had first issued Instructions dated 7.8.2024, which reads as follows: – “I am directed to invite your kind attention to the subject noted above and to say that Government has decided to allocate the district/post to the newly recruited Common Cadre Group-D employees against Advt. No. 01/2023. Therefore, you are authorized that if any HKRNL or outsourced employee is removed as a result of joining of the newly recruited Common Cadre Group-D employee, the Head DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 8 of 12 of Department is allowed to join the HKRNL or outsourced employee on any other vacant suitable post. 2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.” 11. Thereafter, a more comprehensive Policy dated 27.12.2024 was issued to satisfactorily resolve the above situation and to ensure joining of newly selected regular employees, while simultaneously protecting contractual employees covered under the 2024 Act. Vide the said Instructions dated 27.12.2024, it is directed that: – 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 working. 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 cut-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 Rozgar Nigam Ltd., the employee having longest length of engagement would be relieved first. 12. Subsequently, certain Departments continued refusing joining to regularly selected candidates, citing non-availability of vacancies and DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 9 of 12 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 working. Vacancies verified: Posting orders are issued after considering vacancy data available on designated portal. Thus, Department cannot claim non-availability of vacancy. 13. All of the above said relevant factors find mention in the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) as to why services of the petitioner are no longer required. Even otherwise, cogent reasons have been given in the impugned order, which reads as under: - “3. Examination of Claims (a) Claim for Continuation/Adjustment The petitioner is not an "eligible contractual employee on appointed date under the Haryana Contractual Employee (Security of Services) Act, 2024" because he does not fulfill the mandatory eligibility condition of completing five years of continuous full-time service as required under the Government policies dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025 as well as the above mentioned Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continuation, adjustment, or security of service under the said provisions. (b) Employer-Employee Relationship As per the explicit terms of the HKRNL Deployment Offer Letters, the Forest Department is not the employer of the petitioner. The engagement was facilitated by HKRNL, and the contractual terms accepted by the petitioner are binding upon them. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 10 of 12 (c) Availability of Vacant Posts There are no vacant sanctioned posts available within the cadre strength of the concerned offices. Adjustment of the petitioner, therefore, is neither feasible nor permissible under the governing statutory framework. (d) Legal Position The Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 26453 of 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others) and the connected LPA No. 2995 of 2025 has categorically held that contractual employees who do not meet the minimum tenure requirement cannot claim extension or continuation as a vested right. The facts of the present cases are squarely covered by the said judgments. 4. Conclusion and Order After careful consideration of the representation, relevant policies, contractual terms, cadre position, and settled legal principles, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is not entitled to continuation, adjustment, or extension of contractual engagement beyond 31.03.2025. The petitioner is not eligible for benefits under the Government policies dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025 or under the Haryana Contractual Employee (Security of Services) Act, 2024. The discontinuation of the petitioner' contractual engagement upon expiry of the approved term is legal, valid, and in accordance with policy and contractual conditions. Accordingly, the representation/Writ petition stands disposed off. This order is passed with due regard to the dignity of the petitioner and strictly in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 11 of 12 14. 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 while 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 Act, 2024; and persons such as the petitioner who have not been appointed before the cut-off date. It is only thereafter that the relieving/impugned orders of surplus employees have been issued. In the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-6), respondent has delineated the factual position; as also the reasons for relieving the petitioner from the post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator. The impugned order therefore reflects application of mind, equitable construction of selection, as also rationale. 15. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the afore- referred Government Instructions dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025. It is also clear that petitioner was appointed after the cut off date of 15.08.2019 i.e. on 01.11.2019 and, therefore, protection under the Act, 2024 is not available to the petitioner. Respondents have also categorically stated that services of the petitioner have been relieved as there is no vacant post. Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the petitioner. 16. The petitioner is unable to dispute the above said position. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20798-2026 (O&M) 12 of 12 17. As such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. Present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document