RISHPAL SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The straight forward case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed against sanctioned post of Driver in the office of respondent No.2-Director General, Department of Horticulture, Haryana in the year 2015, but on contract basis. He possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Haryana Horticultural (Group-B) Service Rules, 1998 (hereafter referred to as the Service Rules) and to establish this fact documents have been annexed with the writ petition. He has been working with utmost sincerity and devotion to duty and was even assigned work when offices were closed on account of Covid-19 pandemic. The Department has been directly issuing instructions regarding assigning of duties. Suddenly, his service has been discontinued and he has been replaced by respondent No.3 who has also been appointed on contract basis. Replacement of one contractual employee with another contractual employee is illegal and thus, a writ in the nature of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from replacing the petitioner with another contractual employee.

(2.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, written statement has been filed by the Joint Director, Horticulture Haryana. According to the written statement, the principle that one contractual employee cannot be replaced with another contractual employee is not attracted in the facts of this case as the petitioner has not been directly employed on contract basis. The Department has signed an agreement dated 28.07.2017 with respondent No.4 for provision of manpower. In accordance therewith, the petitioner was deployed as a Driver. On 30.09.2020, a communication of even date was addressed to the said contractor for replacing the petitioner and accordingly he was replaced by respondent No.3 on the same date. Replacement was sought because there were complaints that the petitioner was making false entries in the log-book of the vehicle allotted to him. Objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition have also been raised as there is no privity of contract with the petitioner, him being the employee of a private entity i.e. contractor who has been assigned the job of manpower provision through agreement dated 28.07.2017 signed under outsourcing policy part-I of Government of Haryana dated 06.04.2015 and the salary of the petitioner is being paid by respondent No.4.

(3.) However, the specific averment made in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post in the year 2015 has not been denied.