IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7031 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.3.2011 Pritam Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Education, Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 states that he does not wish to file any separate reply and would like to adopt the reply already filed by respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner makes a grievance of the fact that he has been stopped from working, even though Annexure P-2, which is a letter according sanction/permission to him to work as a part time employee till a regular employee is available. He contends that this letter had been violated as the petitioner has been declined the permission to work whereas no regular employee has joined the C.W.P.No.7031 of 2010 -2- sanctioned post. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who have filed reply and have pointed out to the Court that the letter of sanction upon which much reliance has been placed by the petitioner only afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to work till 28.2.2010 as a part time employee contributing about few hours of work to the establishment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was purely a part time employee, who was appointed for a tenure, as such no right accrues in his favour to seek employment beyond the tenure. However, in case the respondents employ some other person on similar terms and conditions instead of a regular employee, opportunity is granted to the petitioner to agitate his grievance at that point of time. Disposed of. 8.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss