124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Mohit Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned action of respondent No.4, whereby, the petitioner has been retrenched on 31.03.2025 from the services without giving any relieving order or any order in writing which is arbitrary and violating Articles 14, 16 & 311 of the Constitution of India. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to join his duty.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Animal Attendant (Class-IV) on 06.07.2021 through an outsourcing agency. He was later brought under Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (in short ‘HKRNL’) w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and his deployment was extended up to 31.03.2025. In the meantime, the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 (in short ‘the Act’) was enacted providing protection to contractual employees who are similarly situated. The Government instructions dated 07.08.2024, 27.12.2024 and 15.01.2025 (Annexures P-2, P-4 & P-8, respectively) directed that such employees need not to be relieved and be adjusted against the vacant posts. Despite availability of sanctioned posts and clear policy protections, the petitioner was orally instructed not to mark his presence on 31.03.2025. He further relies upon the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No.31301 of 2025 titled as ‘Subhash Chander and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’ (Annexure P-9) and submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the same protection as was granted by this Court in the aforesaid case which is ordered to be heard with another connected matter bearing CWP No.26304 of 2025 and all these cases are pending.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he does not fulfil the minimum tenure of 05 years on contractual basis to HKRNL as such, his case is not covered or protected under the Act and further, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.26453 of 2025 titled as ‘Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 08.09.2025 declining the relief to the petitioners therein. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2995 of 2025 on 28.10.2025 has not interfered with the order passed by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar’s case (supra). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has not completed 05 years of service as he was only appointed on 06.07.2021 through an outsourcing agency. He was later brought under the HKRNL w.e.f. 01.04.2022, as such, total length of service of the petitioner is not 05 years as required under Section 3 of the Act.

This Court in Sanjeev Kumar’s case (supra) has observed as under:-

‘7. The relevant part of the Haryana Contractual Employees Security Services Act 2024 are reproduced below, "3. The eligible contractual employee shall be an employee who.-

(i) (a) has been engaged on contract by the Government Organization and is in the service of such Government Organization on the appointed date and receiving remuneration upto Rs. 50,000/-

per month; or (b) is deployed by the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam under the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022 and is in the service of a Government Organization on the appointed date;

(ii) has completed at least five years service in the Government Organization on full time basis as on the appointed date.

Explanation 1.