IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 120 SHAMLAL HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 23.07.2026, Annexure P that he was engaged on out cannot be valid one, in view of the definition given in 2(d) of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Services) Act, 2024, which includes such employees as well and he had wo prays that his bound manner. 2. of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that th Authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it expeditiously, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the order(s) impugned herein, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision SHAMLAL Versus HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, for the respondents. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel submits that the only premise of rejecting claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 23.07.2026, Annexure P that he was engaged on out-sourcing basis, which as a matter of fact, cannot be valid one, in view of the definition given in 2(d) of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Services) Act, 2024, which includes such employees as well and he had worked for more than 5 years, his case be reconsidered and decided in light thereof bound manner. The above facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that th Authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it expeditiously, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the order(s) impugned herein, taking into consideration the submissions and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28479-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 ....Petitioner HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, for the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the only premise of rejecting claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 23.07.2026, Annexure P-7, is sourcing basis, which as a matter of fact, cannot be valid one, in view of the definition given in 2(d) of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Services) Act, 2024, which includes rked for more than 5 years, thus, case be reconsidered and decided in light thereof in a time The above facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that the Authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it expeditiously, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the taking into consideration the submissions and PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.09.10 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28479-2026 -2- the provision referred to hereinabove, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not be addressed in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 3. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same shall contain reasons and she shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 10.09.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.09.10 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document