Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.01.2022 whereby respondent has denied extension to the petitioner.

The petitioner was engaged as Launderer (Dhobi) at Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on contractual basis on 25.01.2018. His contract was annually renewed. He was not given extension after 01.01.2022 due to his implication in FIR No. 191 dated 11.04.2020 under sections 25, 29 of Arms Act, 1959 and section 188 IPC at PS Gannaur (Sonipat). He submitted application dated 06.04.2022 seeking re-engagement on the ground that he has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused and has been granted anticipatory bail on 02.05.2020 by learned ASJ, Sonepat. The respondent vide order dated 28.06.2022 rejected his application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial in aforesaid FIR has concluded and the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgement dated 13.04.2024 passed by learned JMIC, Ganaur, Sonipat. Similarly situated contractual employees after acquittal have been re-engaged by the department.

Learned State counsel, on being confronted with judgment of acquittal and claim of petitioner that similarity situated employees have been taken back after acquittal, submits that competent authority would consider petitioner’s claim and pass an appropriate order within two months from today.

Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the aforesaid arrangement.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands disposed of.

Needless to mention that respondent would communicate its decision to the petitioner within aforementioned period.

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