IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 Sandeep Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present:-

Mr. S.K. Nehra, Advocate with Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court raising a challenge to the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the claim of the petitioner for seeking reinstatement on the post of Pharmacist has been rejected by the respondent authorities.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Pharmacist (JSSK) under NRHM Project at General Hospital, Fatehabad on 23.11.2012. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.07.2013 followed by his reinstatement on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 31.10.2013. He continued to discharge functions against the said post till 14.09.2018 when his services were dispensed with on 14.09.2018, without assigning any reasons. The said order was challenged in CWP-27977-2018 titled as 'Kapil and another Vs. State of Haryana and others'. Petitioner Sandeep was a co-petitioner in the said writ petition. Vide order dated 26.05.2022, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by holding as under:-

“4. Petitioners also seek parity with one Manoj Kumar, who was also working as Pharmacist, whose services were also terminated but later he was re-inducted. Stand of the State therein, was that he was not appointed against any vacant regular post. Vide Award dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, the industrial dispute raised by workman Manoj Kumar was answered in his favour. Pursuant thereto, said Manoj Kumar was reinstated vide order dated

03.05.2017 (Annexure P-10). Hence the present petition. 5. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the writ proceedings, while services of petitioner No.1 have been retained even though the stand taken in the return is that service of both the petitioners had to be dispensed with in order to make way for regular appointees. Writ petition qua petitioner No.1 in any case is rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

6. As regards petitioner No.2-Sandeep Kumar, it transpires that during the pendency of writ petition, State government has taken a policy decision to outsource the contractual employees through a newly set up Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam. 7. In the premise, the writ petition qua petitioner No.2 stands disposed of with an expectation that the respondents shall accommodate petitioner No.2 by giving the benefit of length of his contractual service and entertain his application in case he applies to be taken back in service on contract basis through the aforesaid Nigam.

8. Disposed of, as above.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition and the direction contained therein, the petitioner was not registered on the portal of HKRN for the reason that he did not have his EPF/ESI number. On 24.11.2022, the office of Civil Surgeon, Fatehabad requested the HKRN to register the petitioner on its portal without insisting on EPF/ESI number and to ensure compliance of order dated 26.05.2022 passed by this Court. It was only thereafter that the petitioner was registered with the HKRN vide registration ID No.090922986564368. Despite his registration, petitioner was not reinstated, whereupon the petitioner filed COCP No.1721-2023 titled as 'Sandeep Kumar Vs. Dr. G.Anupama, IAS and another'. A compliance affidavit dated 18.04.2024 was filed in the said contempt petition and an order dated 07.02.2024 was also placed on record along with the same, whereby claim of the petitioner for appointment had been declined. The operative part of the said order reads