SUMIT DHIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-12) and thereby setting aside the action of the official respondents in appointing respondents No. 4 and 5 in place of the petitioners in violation of law as has been laid down by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gordhan Singh Gulia vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (3) S.C.T. 412, where it has been held that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee. Prayer has also been made for regularizing the services of the petitioners for continuing them in service till the appointments on regular basis are made.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, admittedly, was initially appointed through NIC, Punjab under the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology on contractual basis. He joined as Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 14.07.2011 with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana-respondent No. 3. He continued as such till a decision was taken by the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) that henceforth, the appointments would be made directly by the department on contract basis. In pursuance thereto, petitioner No. 1 was granted extension. Another employee, who was appointed in the similar manner as the petitioner, having left the job, petitioner No. 2 joined in his place on 06.02.2014. This appointment was directly made by the competent authority on contract basis and continued till letter dated 06.02.2015 was issued by the Government of Punjab wherein further extension, as proposed by respondent No. 3, was declined and in pursuance thereto, the services of the petitioners came to an end on 28.02.2015. It is then when the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) On notice having been issued, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein initial response to the writ petition was as a mode of denial with regard to the factum of the petitioners having been appointed by the respondent-department directly after the initial appointment through NIC. However, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 09.01.2017, whereby a specific affidavit was sought for from the respondents relating to the aspect whether the petitioners were under the direct contract employment of the Department or through the service provider and as to whether the replacements, as have been provided by the Punjab Ex- Servicemen Corporation, were earlier employed i.e. the petitioners. In pursuance thereto, affidavit dated 27.09.2018 has been filed where the fact with regard to the petitioners being appointed on contract basis after the decision dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) having been taken, was admitted. However, the factum with regard to the replacement of the petitioners has not been specifically so denied or admitted.