SARJEET Vs. DHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post till the regular incumbents join in view of the undertaking given by the respondents before this Court vide orders dated 30.5.2009 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and as per the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 15332-CAT of 2003 decided on 28.3.2005 titled, ' Harminder Kaur and others vs. Union of India and others' (Annexure P-1).

(2.) The respondents invited applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) to be filled up on daily wages. Petitioner applied for the said post. He appeared in the interview before the selection Committee and was selected. Thereafter, he joined his duties as ALM. He was allotted ESIC and Provident Fund Account numbers and Rs.1300/- per month was deducted from his salary under the head 'Provident Fund Account'. The petitioner has not been paid his salary from November 2012 till 21.11.2013 and has been restrained from continuing his services. Similarly situated employees who were appointed ALM had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2141 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar and others vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others) and CWP No. 3008 of 2009 (Parveen Kumar and others vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others). These writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2009 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) whereby an undertaking was given by the respondents that ALMs/SAs who have been engaged on contract/outsource basis shall be given preference by the contractors for engaging them on DC rates for six months. It was further stated that others persons shall only be considered when earlier engaged ALMs/SAs having experience are not available. The petitioner is seeking the same benefit that he should be retained as per the orders of this Court (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and his services should not be terminated/dispensed with till the regular incumbents join.

(3.) On notice, respondents no. 1 to 3 filed written statement submitting therein that as per the outsourcing policy of the Government of Haryana adopted by the respondent-Nigam, various categories of employees including Assistant Lineman (ALM) were engaged through contractor in the Nigam. The work order/contract allotted to the Contractor by the Nigam had specified the staff qualifications also, the relevant Clause 30 of the same was reproduced: