IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

126 CM-3250-CWP-2025 and CM-3251-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25535-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision : 10.03.2025 RANJIT DUBEY ...... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ***

Present :- Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ashok K. Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-3250-CWP-2025 In the present application, the petitioner's prayer is for condoning the delay of 487 days in filing the application for restoration.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 487 days in filing the resotration application is condoned.

Application is allowed. CM-3251-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated

31.10.2023 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Notice of the application.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and Mr. Ashok K. Jindal, Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.4 and raise no objection in case, the order dated

31.10.2023 is recalled and the present petition is restored.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the order dated 31.10.2023 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number and status and on joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken on board today itself.

CWP-25535-2016

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the action of respondents terminating the services of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that though the petitioner was appointed through an outsourcing agency but, he was working with the respondent-Department hence, the respondent- department of the State being the principal employer, is liable to be directed to reinstate the petitioner by setting aside the termination of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the writ petition is non-maintainable as there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the administrative department of the State as concededly the petitioner was the employee of the outsourcing agency and the contract between the agency and respondent-department was terminated on 31.05.2016 which fact has gone unrebutted hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. The issue whether, where the employees are working through the outsourcing agency, the writ petition is maintainable or not has already been decided by this Court while passing order in CWP-12274-2020 titled 'Kumar Saurabh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on

30.09.2020. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment is as under:-

This Court had an occasion to consider somewhat similar claim of the contractual employees employed through service provider, wherein also claim was raised that contractual employees working through Contractor by way of outsourcing, are to be treated as Government employees. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered this aspect while deciding CWP-18619-2011 titled as 'Nishan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab', along with other connected cases, vide judgment dated

28.02.2013 and decided as under: -

“A perusal of this policy would show that it is applicable to the employees, who were working as daily wagers/workcharge/contract basis on permanent posts and were appointed by the State of Punjab after fulfilling eligibility criteria as per the proper procedure. Policy dated 18.3.2011 dealt with regularization of the services of not only contractual employees, but the daily wagers/workcharge employees working in different departments of the Government. By this policy dated 17.11.2011, the benefit of regulariza