IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 CWP-38197-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Shiv Kumar and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

219 CWP-7179-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Shiv Kumar and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Harjit Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana.

Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2-MICADA in CWP-7179-2021.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Whether State should be permitted to replace a set of contractual employees by another by way of a clandestine transfer of the scheme to another nodal instrumentality of the State, with a re-naming of the department, and thereby stopping the budgetary allocation to the department in which the petitioners were contractually engaged, and then to plead that since the State funding to the scheme is discontinued, the petitioners need to be relieved, is the core issue that arises for adjudication in these writ petitions. The same are thus taken up together.

2. Certain undisputed facts necessary for adjudication of these writ petitions are that the petitioners, who possess the qualification of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.) in Agricultural Engineering from the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS HAU’) had participated in the campus recruitment/selection process undertaken for the post of Horticulture Development Officers, by the Department of Horticulture, Haryana in June-2012. The Director General, Horticulture, Haryana as well as the Deputy Director, Horticulture in Micro Irrigation were members of the Selection Committee that conducted the campus interview of the petitioners on 20.06.2012 and being fully eligible, the Committee recommended the petitioners for appointment to the post of Horticulture Development Officers (Micro Irrigation) for a period of one year vide letter of appointment dated 14.08.2012. As per the nature of duties to be performed, the petitioners were to provide latest technological knowhow in the field of horticulture to the farmers at their door-step through extensions and perform any other duties that may be so assigned by the Director General, Horticulture or any other senior officer. The said contractual appointment continued to be extended from time to time.

3. It would be relevant also to record that the respondent- Government of Haryana had earlier notified a policy for engaging/outsourcing of services/activities vide its memo No.43/5/2001- IGSI dated 16.02.2009 in partial modification of the previous Haryana Government circular for engaging persons on contract basis through service providers under the outsourcing regular contract policy issued on 01.09.2006. The said policy of 16.02.2009 was in two parts. While Part-1 dealt with policy for outsourcing of services/activities where the posts had not been sanctioned, the departments was to engage services of persons through an outsourcing agency on the prescribed criteria, Part-2 on the other hand dealt with engagement of persons even directly by the department on contract basis where a regular post existed. In such circumstances, an option was granted to the department to either engage persons through the Employment Exchange or on contract basis at its own level. The petitioners were, however, engaged directly by the Department and thus there existed an employee-employer relationship.

4. Apprehending that the respondents might indulge in an illegal discontinuation of the employment of the petitioners, CWP-17441-2013 was filed before this Court and the apprehension anticipated by the petitioners was noticed by this Court in the judgment dated 03.08.2016 that the respondent-authorities may resort to a methodology whereby one contractual employee was likely to be replaced by another. A direction was thus s