220.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Ashwani Kumar and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: None for the petitioners.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

-----

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners, who were appointed on contract basis, and grant them regular pay scale by treating them at par with regular employees.

2. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 7, it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed through respondent No.5-contractor. Para 2 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement is as under:-

“2. That the present Civil Writ Petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds as there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the answering respondents. The petitioners are fairly and squarely the employees of out-source company through which the petitioners were appointed in the department on out-source basis. The contract for providing drivers and conductors was executed between State of Punjab and respondent No.5 Provider Informatics (p) Ltd, Chandigarh and their services can be dispensed with at any time even without serving notice upon them. Since the petitioners are not employees of the answering respondents and their services are purely on contract basis, hence they are not entitled to regular pay scale while treating at par with regular employees. The services of the petitioners are purely on contract basis and they are being paid the salary as per the contract entered into between the department and out-source company from time to time. The present petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed on this short ground alone.”

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as no writ can be issued against a Contractor-respondent No.5.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record

5. It is settled law that no writ petition would lie against an outsourcing agency, as it is not an authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, 2014 (11) RCR (Civil) 262, wherein it has been held that the service provider, who has selected the candidates for work in the government department, is not an agency of the State. The appellants therein were neither selected under any service rules applicable to regular employees of the State of Punjab nor did they apply under any advertisement for their appointment as contractual or regular employees of the State. It was further held that the acceptance of the claim of the appellants therein for continuation of services would amount to a back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the case of Anmol Garg and another Versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP No. 29655 of 2018, decided on 28.11.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by an employee engaged through outsourcing agency which was upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No.1910 of 2018, decided on

10.12.2018 and the operative part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a license under the contract to supply manpower held there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The principle being canvassed before us applies only in case there is a privity of contract