LPA-2435-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 LPA-2435-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :27.08.2026 TEK CHAND ..Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 06.08.2026, whereby the writ petition bearing CWP No. 24281 of 2026, titled as ‘Tek Chand versus State of Haryana and others’, filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) has been dismissed rejecting his claim for the extension of the service contract for the post of driver. 2. It may be noticed that vide appointment letter dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1), the appellant was appointed to the post of Ambulance Driver under Referral Transportation (National Health Mission) on contract basis. The said contract was extended from time to time and the last renewal was upto the financial year 2022-23. Upon expiry of the said term, there was no further renewal of the contract and, consequently, the services of the appellant came to an end. The said action was termed by the appellant as termination of his services, and a writ petition was filed claiming that, having worked for a period of around eight years, his termination from RIYA 2026.09.01 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2435-2026 (O&M) 2 service was bad in law and he should be reinstate in service. The said prayer was declined by the learned Single Judge, which has led to the filing of the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the appellant had worked for a period of almost eight years, a 15 days prior notice should have been given to him before terminating his services. As no such notice was given to him, hence, the termination of the services of the appellant was bad in law. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in its correct perspective. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 5. It may be noticed that it is a conceded factual position that the appellant was working on a contractual basis and that his contract was extended from time to time and there was no extension of the contract after the financial year 2022-23. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant’s services were terminated. Rather, the said contract of service came to an end upon expiry of the term for which the appellant had been appointed, and thereafter, he was not allowed to continue in service. Thus, the present case is not regarding termination of service during the subsistence of the contract, but dispensation of the service of the appellant upon completion of his term under the contract. 6. As regard to the arguments that a 15 days prior notice was required to be given to the appellant before terminating his service, it may RIYA 2026.09.01 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2435-2026 (O&M) 3 be noticed that such notice would be required where the services are terminated during the subsistence of the contract. In the present case, the services of the appellant were dispensed with upon completion of the contractual term. Therefore, the requirement of issuing a 15 days notice prior would not arise. 7. Further, the contractual term of the appellant came to an end in the financial year 2022-23, whereas the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2026, i.e. after a period of about four years from the expiry of the contractual term. Hence, in totality the claim of the appellant that his services has been terminated, is incorrect and the said aspect has rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while declining the relief sought by the appellant. 8. Hence, no perversity has been shown to this Court with regard to the impugned order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge that the same is contrary to the facts of the case or the settled principle of law. 9. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (MINDERJEET YADAV ) JUDGE August 27, 2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No RIYA 2026.09.01 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document