IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3896 of 2010 Date of decision : 24.02.2011 Arun Kumar Gupta and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operator or Computer Operator by the respondents on contractual basis. It is stated that they were working on the said post for the last four to six years. They have approached this Court with the grievance that their contract has been cancelled on 28.12.2009 and respondents No. 4 to 11 have been engaged against the said posts on the same terms and conditions. By making reference to number of judgments, the petitioners have filed this writ petition to say that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another and as such it is prayed that the order cancelling the contract be set aside and directions be issued to continue employment of the petitioners. Notice was issued and the reply has been filed. After making reference that the petitioners were only contractual employees and were appointed on contractual basis for a fixed Civil Writ Petition No. 3896 of 2010 -2- period, it is stated that there are no terms and conditions contained in their contractual appointment. It is also pointed out in the reply that the work and conduct of petitioners No. 1 and 2 are not satisfactory after merging in the District Information Technology Society, Fatehabad and work and conduct of petitioners No. 3 and 4 were also not found satisfactory during the last six months. To point out the unsatisfactory working of petitioner No. 1, it is stated that he is holding a Small Savings Agency and has been concentrating on that job. This agency has been renewed up to 2011. It is, accordingly, stated that he is carrying on his own business. On this basis, the respondents would justify their action. Primarily, it is a case of termination of a contract. The contractual employee would not have any enforceable right and can seek damages if the contractual service is terminated illegally or wrongly. If the work and conduct of contractual employee is found unsatisfactory, the respondents can not be forced to continue with the same. The respondents can always change in the arrangement on this ground. The only remedy available to the petitioners, who are contractual employees, would be to seek damages. Contract of employment cannot be enforced on any employer. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek damages, in case, they find that their contract of service was wrongly terminated. February 24, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE