SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MONIKA BHATIA – Appellant
Versus
HARYANA KAUSHAL ROZGAR NIGAM LTD – Respondent
CWP_15061_2026



##PAGE1##

1

CWP-15061-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

128 CWP-15061-2026

Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

Monika Bhatia

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue

with her service in the office of respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the

petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 01.06.2009 on contractual

basis through an outsourcing agency and has continuously served the

respondents ever since. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner

subsequently came to be protected under the provisions of the Haryana

Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 and the Amendment

PUNEET CHAWLA

2026.05.15 14:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

2

CWP-15061-2026

Act, 2025 and she was duly extended the benefit of the said enactments.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 17 years

of continuous, satisfactory and unblemished service to the respondents.

2.1 It is further contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated

in FIR No.4 dated 16.02.2026 registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) read

with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station

ACB, Faridabad (Annexure P-1). However, the petitioner was granted

regular bail vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned trial Court

(Annexure P-2). Learned counsel submits that despite grant of bail, when the

petitioner approached the respondents for joining duties, she was not

permitted to resume service. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted

representations dated 27.03.2026 and 03.04.2026 (Annexures P-3 and P-4)

followed by reminder dated 17.04.2026 requesting restoration of her

services, however, no action has been taken thereupon till date.

2.2 Learned counsel further submits that neither any order

terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed, nor has she been

placed under suspension. It is argued that no show cause notice, charge-

sheet or memorandum of allegations has ever been served upon the

petitioner and no departmental proceedings or inquiry under the applicable

service rules has been initiated against her. Learned counsel submits that the

Haryana Punishment and Appeal Rules, 2016 are applicable to employees

protected under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service)

PUNEET CHAWLA

2026.05.15 14:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

3

CWP-15061-2026

Act, 2024 and, therefore, the respondents are legally bound to adhere to the

prescribed statutory procedure before taking any adverse action affecting the

service rights of the petitioner.

2.3 It is further argued that the action of the respondents in forcibly

discontinuing the petitioner from service without issuance of any formal

order, suspension order, charge-sheet, show cause notice or departmental

proceedings is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of

natural justice. Learned counsel submits that mere registration of an FIR

does not automatically authorize the employer or State instrumentalities to

keep an employee out of service indefinitely without following the

mandatory procedure established under the applicable rules and law. Such

action, it is argued, amounts to imposing a punitive consequence without

affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and is violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2.4 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

present writ petition may be treated as a comprehensive representation and a

direction be issued to the respondents/com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top