Vikas Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J

The petition has been taken for hearing through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.

In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3), he has been relieved from service on

the ground that the term of Integrated Corporation Development Project (I.C.D.P.), Ambala has already come to an end on 31.12.2019 and hence, no

employee, who is on contract basis, can be allowed to continue.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on the basis of incorrect facts. Learned counsel for

the petitioner argues that I.C.D.P., Ambala is in existence and working and further, a similarly situated employee, namely, Dalbir Singh, has been

retained and, therefore, relieving the petitioner from service is arbitrary and illegal and order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be set-aside.

This Court on 16.07.2020 passed the following the order :-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the service of the petitioner has been discontinued vide communication dated

13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3). He contends that as a matter of fact, I.C.D.P. Ambala is still continuing and there is an error in mentioning that the

I.C.D.P. Ambala's duration is completed by 31.12.2019. He, thus, contends that the order dated 13.03.2020 cannot sustain.

Counsel for the State to seek instructions with regard to the fact as to whether the I.C.D.P. Ambala is still continuing or has been closed.

List on 21.07.2020.â€​

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who appears on behalf of the respondent-State states that he has received instructions from

Mr. Yogender Aggarwal, Deputy Chief Auditor in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana that the term of I.C.D.P., Ambala has

already come to an end on 31.12.2019 and as there are no projects, which are pending to be executed by I.C.D.P., Ambala and any further project for

execution has not been received, the Staff which was working on contract basis in I.C.D.P., Ambala, has been relieved. Learned State counsel

further states that the minor works of the pending project is being executed by giving additional charge to the regular employees of the I.C.D.P.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State further states that Dalbir Singh is not working at the I.C.D.P., Ambala but is posted in

Monitoring Cell at Panchkula and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the similarly situated employee has been retained at I.C.D.P., Ambala, is

incorrect. Learned State counsel submits that no contractual employee has been retained in I.C.D.P., Ambala.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.

While appointing the petitioner on 26.05.2014, many conditions were imposed in the appointment order. Condition No. 8 is reproduced as under:-

“8. The contractual engagement will be for the period upto the competition of the project and their services can be terminated at any time on the

basis of performance of duties by given one month notice with the permission of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana.â€​

From the above reproduction, it would be clear that petitioner was to continue upto the completion of project and his services could have been

terminated by giving one month notice with the permission of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana.

In the present case, as per the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the projects with the I.C.D.P., Ambala have already come to

an end and even the term of the I.C.D.P., Ambala, which came to an end on 31.12.2019, has never been extended and, therefore, as the I.C.D.P.,

Ambala term ended on 31.12.2019, the contractual staff has been relieved vide impugned order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3). This is very much

within the competence of the respondents keeping in view the terms and conditions of the appointment order. No grievance can be made by the

petitioner, who is a contractual employee that he is entitled to continue even though, there are no projects, which are to be executed by the I.C.D.P.,

Ambala and once the term of the I.C.D.P., Ambala has already come to an end on 31.12.2019.

Petitioner can only invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in case, he has any vested right for the enforcement of the same. In the present case, no vested

right has been shown by the petitioner so as to continue in the employment of I.C.D.P., Ambala, especially, when there are no further projects, which

have been received by the I.C.D.P., Ambala and even the term of the I.C.D.P., Ambala has come to an end on 31.12.2019. In the absence of any

vested right to continue in the employment of I.C.D.P., Ambala, no direction can be issued so as to allow the petitioner to continue in service with the

I.C.D.P., Ambala.

Further, the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Dalbir Singh, who is a similarly situated employee, has been

allowed to continue, therefore, services of the petitioner could not be dispensed with, is also not correct. As per the respondents, Sh. Dalbir Singh is

not working with the I.C.D.P., Ambala but is working in the Monitoring Cell in Panchkula, which is clear from Annexure P-1, which is the

appointment order, by which even the petitioner was appointed. Once, Dalbir Singh is not working in I.C.D.P., Ambala, the petitioner cannot claim

parity with said Dalbir Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that there are some other juniors of the petitioner, namely, Meenu, Rajesh and Kulbir Singh who are

still working. Learned counsel has also fairly admitted that none of the above said person is working in the I.C.D.P., Ambala but are working in the

other Districts. Further, nothing has been placed on record to show that there was any merit list prepared while selecting the petitioner or the petitioner

in any manner is senior to the above named employees. In the absence of any such material, no finding can be recorded that the petitioner was senior

to the above named personnels and has still being relieved from service.

That being so, petitioner cannot claim any parity with the persons, who are working with the I.C.D.P. in other Districts, which are continuing and,

therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner that other similarly situated employees are allowed to continue, cannot come to his rescue as the said

fact is incorrect.

Keeping in view the above, no interference is called for in order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) in the present writ petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.