Randhir Singh Age 44 Years, Son Of Shri … vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 December, 2024

0
26

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Randhir Singh Age 44 Years, Son Of Shri … vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 December, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170967

CWP-34709
    34709-2024                               -11-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
132
                                                           CWP-34709-2024
                                                    Date of Decision: 19.12.2024
                                                                           .2024
RANDHIR SINGH
                                                                       ...Petitioner
                                         Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                        ...Respondents
                                        ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:-
        Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate and
        Mr. Pramjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
                          *****
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA,
          DAHIYA J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a direction to the

respondents to allow rejoining and/or adjustment of the petitioner against

any vacant post of Clerk in any Government School/College
ollege in

District
istrict Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner

was working as a contractual Clerk
Clerk in Government College
College, Ladana Chaku,

Kaithal. Thereafter, vide memo dated 01.08.2022
01.08.2022, Annexure P-9, he was

adjusted as a displaced Clerk
lerk working uunder Part I and Part II of the

Outsourcing
utsourcing Policy in Government College Uklana, Hisar. He worked there

up to December, 2023,
2023, but was not paid any salary because his posting at

Hisar had not been updated by the Nigam. Later
Later, the petitioner submitted a

representation and the second respondent
representation, respondent/Director Higher Education, vide

memo dated 19.12.2023, Annexure P-

P-11, asked the College Principal,
Principal

Uklana to take action regarding release of salary to the petitioner, which is

still not paid.

3. Learned counsel further contend
contends that as per the latest

development, another post of Clerk
lerk in Government College for Girls,

Cheeka, Kaithal,
Kaithal has fallen vacant, and the concerned Principal has

requested the
the second respondent vide letter dated 22.07.2022,, Annexure
Annexur

P-12,
12, to post a contractual Clerk
Clerk there on account of administrative
ministrative

1 of 2
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:23:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170967

CWP-34709
34709-2024 -22-

exigency.. Meanwhile, the petitioner represented to the second respondent

seeking rejoining/adjustment against a vacant post of Clerk, vide

representation dated 08.08.2024,
08.08.2024, Annexure P
P-13. This representation was

duly forwarded by the Principal,
Principal, Govt. College, Ladana Chaku
Chaku,, Kaithal,

where the petitioner was earlier working,
working with the remarks that no Clerk was

working in the College for the time being
being. It is still pending decision
cision with

the second respondent. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner is

entitled to re-adjustment
re adjustment as contractual Clerk in a college in terms of the

‘Adjustment
Adjustment of contractual persons of Group C of Outsourcing Policy’,
Policy

dated 06.11.2020, Annexure P-8.

P At this stage, petitioner will be satisfied in

case the second respondent is directed to consider and decide his

representation dated 08.08.2024, regarding adjustment as Clerk agaiinst
representation,

available vacancy.

4. Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana
Haryana, appearing on advance notice

submits that the pending representation, dated 08.08.2024, will be decided

by the seccond respondent,, by passing a speaking order in accordance with

law within two months.

5. In view of the statement made
made, learned counsel for the

petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof.

6. Ordered accordingly.

7. In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the

officer concerned shall pay costs of `50,000
50,000 to the petitioner.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE

December 19, 2024
Mohit Bishnoi/Maninder
/Maninder

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

2 of 2
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:23:02 :::

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here