IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Rashid Hussain Alias Rashid .....Petitioner VERSUS State Of Haryana And Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Afjal Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the respondent-department, in view of the similar orders dated 24.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 7437 of 2025 titled as Renu and others vs. State of Haryana and other Annexure P-7, and order dated 30.01.2025 passed in CWP No. 9827 of 2025 titled as Sandeep Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, Annexure P-8, and keeping in view the satisfactory service rendered by the petitioner and also prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned relieving order dated 05.03.2026, Annexure P-4, issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in a most illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner, in violation of the policy instructions dated 07.08.2024 and 15.01.2025, Annexure P-5 and P-6 respectively, issued by respondent No. 1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on 01.11.2023 through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (HKRN), and the appointment letter is annexed as Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that the Government of Haryana amended the Deployment Policy and enacted the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024. Learned counsel submits that policy instructions dated 07.08.2024, Annexure P-5, and 15.01.2025, Annexure P-6, provide for adjustment of HKRN employees. However, despite the statutory protection, the respondent has relieved the petitioner vide order dated 05.03.2026, Annexure P-4. It is further contended that no regular appointment has been made in place of the petitioner and vacant posts are still available. Similarly situated employees have been granted relief by this Court in terms of Annexures P-7 to P-9, whereby they were permitted to rejoin service. The impugned relieving of the petitioner is, thus, in violation of the Act of 2024, as well as policy instructions contained in Annexures P-5 and P-6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order in light of Annexures P-7 to P-9 after affording an opportunity of being heard.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4.

5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to treat the writ petition as representation and consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in light of the judgment(s), Annexures P-7 to P-9, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 02 weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents.

6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, be also disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

06.04.2026

Parul Verma

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No

Whethe