CWP No. 14522 of 2010 1 and other connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 14522 of 2010 (O&M) Megh Raj Sharma ....Petitioner VERSUS The Director of Industrial Training and Vocational Eduation, Haryana and another ....Respondents 2. CWP No. 478 of 2011(O&M) Vijay Rangi and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 3. CWP No. 1598 of 2011(O&M) Dinesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 4. CWP No. 1645 of 2011(O&M) Rakesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 5. CWP No. 2755 of 2011(O&M) Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner CWP No. 14522 of 2010 2 and other connected matters VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 6. CWP No. 3250 of 2011(O&M) Hira Lal and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 7. CWP No. 3251 of 2011(O&M) Pooja and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 8. CWP No. 3249 of 2011(O&M) Sudesh Sharma and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 9. CWP No. 3392 of 2011(O&M) Ajaydeep and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CWP No. 14522 of 2010 3 and other connected matters 10. CWP No. 4313 of 2011(O&M) Rajni Kumari and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 11. CWP No. 4414 of 2011(O&M) Narender and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 12. CWP No. 5007 of 2011(O&M) Anita ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 13. CWP No. 5081 of 2011(O&M) Rom Harshan and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents 14. CWP No. 5084 of 2011(O&M) Sarvjeet and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CWP No. 14522 of 2010 4 and other connected matters 15. CWP No. 8654 of 2011(O&M) Seema Patwa and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 16. CWP No. 8725 of 2011(O&M) Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 17. CWP No. 8660 of 2011(O&M) Rajwati and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 18. CWP No. 9097 of 2011(O&M) Jarwar Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Decided on : 24-05-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP nos. 14522 of 2010, 478 of 2011, 1598 of 2011, 1645 of 2011, 3250 of2011, 3251 of 2011, 3249 of2011, 4414 of 2011 and 8725 of 2011 CWP No. 14522 of 2010 5 and other connected matters Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for petitioners in CWP nos. 2755 of 2011, 3392 of 2011, 5081 of 2011 and 5084 of 2011 Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for petitioners in CWP no. 5007 of 2011 Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for petitioners in CWP no. 4813 of 2011 and 8660 of 2011 Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for petitioners in CWP nos. 8654 and 9097 of 2011 Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of 18 writ petitions bearing CWP nos. 14522 of 2010, 478, 1598, 1645, 2755, 3250, 3251, 3249, 3392, 4313, 4414, 5007, 5081, 5084, 8654, 8725, 8660 and 9097 of 2011. Notice of motion in CWP nos. 8660 and 9097 of 2011. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rathee accepts notice in these petitions on behalf of respondents – State. Reply has been filed by the respondents – State only in CWP no.14522 of 2010 but Sh. D.R.Bansal, Deputy Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Haryana, Chandigarh is present in Court. He states that there is no apprehension to the services of the petitioners as no process has been undertaken by them to fill up the posts on similar terms as those of the petitioners. He further states that the petitioners are working and are being paid regularly as per the terms of their contracts. It has further been stated before this Court that in view of the fact that there is no threat of termination of the services of the petitioner they can have a grievance only if the respondents propose to fill up the posts on contractual basis by replacing the services of the petitioners. CWP No. 14522 of 2010 6 and other connected matters In view of the aforesaid statement made before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that no further action is required in these petitions. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court in the eventuality of any threat emanating from any effort made by the respondents to replace their services by another set of employees on similar terms. Disposed of. May 24, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge