Kundan Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner at par with similarly situated candidates who were relieved pursuant to the same impugned order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in CWP No.7772 of 2026, titled Chanan Singh versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-12), and CWP No.18232 of 2025, titled Jaidev and others versus State of Haryana and others, along with the lead case CWP No.7437 of 2025 (Annexure P-9), and to decide the pending representation of the petitioner by extending the benefit of parity in light of the aforesaid judgments; and/or for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned relieving order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), qua the petitioner, issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner, engaged as a Group ‘D’ employee, has been relieved, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and in violation of the policy instructions dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025 (Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively), issued by respondent No.1.

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been working continuously, without any break, with respondent No.4 against a Group ‘D’ post on contractual basis since 01.06.2021. After rendering service for approximately three years and ten months, his services were relieved vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). It is submitted that, upon the establishment of Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HKRNL’), the names of employees engaged under Part-I and Part--II of the Outsourcing Policy were brought on the portal of HKRNL and the name of the petitioner was also duly ported on the said portal. Learned counsel further submits that The Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Ordinance, 2024 came into force on 15.08.2024 and was subsequently replaced by the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, which was notified on 06.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), with a view to provide protection of service to eligible contractual employees. Learned counsel contends that the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered for grant of protection under the aforesaid Act, particularly in the light of the judgments dated 24.12.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7437 of 2025, titled Renu and others versus State of Haryana and others, along with connected matters (Annexure P-9); dated 30.01.2026 passed in CWP No.9827 of 2025, titled Sandeep Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others, along with connected matters (Annexure P-10); dated 25.02.2026 passed in CWP No.5904 of 2026, titled Waseem Akram and others versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-11); and dated 16.03.2026 passed in CWP No.7772 of 2026, titled Chanan Singh versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-12). It is further submitted that, as on date, 43 vacancies are available with the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, if present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of protection under the 2024 Act as well as for re-engagement against the available vacancies, in light of abovesaid judgments.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that she has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in a time-bound manner.

Heard.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner and having regard to the limited relief sought in the present petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, while keeping in view aforementioned case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit claimed, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules, policies and regulations.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.