IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. C.W.P. No. 1121 of 2009 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Sumer Singh Yadav and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 2. C.W.P. No. 1564 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Mukesh Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 3. C.W.P. No. 1607 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Rakesh Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 4. C.W.P. No. 1701 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Kanwar Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1121 of 2009 -2- 5. C.W.P. No. 1706 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Vijay Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 6. C.W.P. No. 1843 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Karan Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 7. C.W.P. No. 1944 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Narender Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS 8. C.W.P. No. 2020 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2009 Sanjay Sharma and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS CWP No. 1121 of 2009 -3- CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWPs No. 1121, 1564, 1701, 1706, 1843 and 2020 of 2009) Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 1607 of 2009) Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 2020 of 2009) Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitons No. 1121, 1564, 1607, 1701, 1706, 1843, 1944 and 2020 of 2009, as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from CWP No. 1121 of 2009. The petitioners, who were engaged as Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant on contract basis for a period of six months on the D.C rates, fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, have filed these petitions for issuing direction to the respondents not to terminate their services till the regular incumbents are appointed and join on their posts. Prayer has also been made for quashing of letter dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-7) written by respondent No.1 directing respondent No.2 to dispense with the services of the petitioners after the expiry of the contract period, as per the condition of CWP No. 1121 of 2009 -4- the appointment letter. While issuing notice of motion, respondents were directed not to replace the petitioners with other persons, who may be appointed in a similar manner. In the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a fixed term and after the expiry of the contract period, they have no legal right to remain in the service. It has also been stated that the process of recruitment on regular basis has been initiated. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents states that the respondent Nigam will not appoint any person on contract basis in place of the petitioners. He further states that it has been decided that the respondent Nigam will take the services of the contractor to provide manpower as per requirement from time to time. On instructions from the respondents, he states that the respondent Nigam will ensure that the contractor, who will provide manpower to the Nigam, gives the preference to the petitioners for hiring their services. If the petitioners will not be available, only then the contractor will engage the other persons from the open market. He further states that a similar writ petition i.e. CWP No. 5365 of 2009, titled as Narender Kumar Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others, decided on 30.5.2009, filed by various ALMs/SAs, working on contract basis, has been disposed of by this Court by passing the following order :- CWP No. 1121 of 2009 -5- “Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, counsel for the respondents, on written instructions from the respondents, copy of which has been placed on record, states that the ALMs/SAs, who have been engaged on contract/out source basis, shall be given preference by the contractors for engaging them on D.C rates for six months. He further states that the other persons shall only be considered when earlier engaged ALMs/SAs having experience are not available. He further states that these instructions will be strictly adhered by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid statement, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition. Dismissed as not pressed.” It is the conceded position that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis only for a period of six months. The said period has already expired on 31.1.2009. In the service agreement of the petitioners, it has been clearly stipulated that their services shall be for a period not exceeding six months and on the expiry of the said period, their services shall be dispensed with. After the expiry of the contractual period, the petitioners were not entitled to continue to work. Accordingly, vide letter dated 12.1.2009, their services were ordered to be dispensed with with effect from 31.1.2009. A contract employee is not entitled to continue to work after the expiry of the contract period. He is also not entitled for regularisation of his services. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioners have no legal right to continue on the post, after the expiry of the contract period. However, the respondents also cannot be permitted to replace one contract employee by another contract employee. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the CWP No. 1121 of 2009 -6- statement of counsel for the respondents to the effect that the respondent Nigam will not directly appoint any contract employee in place of the petitioners and if the Nigam decides to take the services of a contractor to provide manpower as per requirement from time to time, in that situation, it will be ensured that the contractor gives the preference to the petitioners to engage them for providing services to the Nigam, all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statement. As far as the respondents are concerned, they will not directly appoint any contract employee in place of the petitioners and if they take the services of a contractor, then the contractor shall give preference to the petitioners. September 02, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) monika/ndj JUDGE