IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3671 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.3.2010. Damodar Sharma and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Replies on behalf of the Director General, Health Services, Haryana and Join Secretary to Govt. Haryana have been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Director General, Health Services, Haryana issued advertisement dated 18.6.2008 inviting the eligible candidates for walk-in interview to fill up the posts of Lab. Technicians in various hospitals. The petitioners claiming to be eligible in terms of the rules and the advertisement appeared in the interview and were selected. They were consequently appointed vide letter dated 9.7.2008 against the para medical staff as Lab. Technicians on contractual basis on a consolidated amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month i.e. D.C rates. It is alleged that, though, they were appointed on the lump sum amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month, however, they have been paid Rs. 8,000/- per month. The appointment of the petitioners was initially for a period of six months. The period expired on 23.1.2009 and in some cases on different dates. It is, however, admitted case that they were granted extension for a further period of six months. At the time of CWP. No. 3671 of 2010 -2- initial engagement, they had executed an agreement. Now the extended period of six months has also expired. The respondents instead of continuing the petitioners have issued the fresh advertisement dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P-8) again inviting applications for contractual engagement in the similar manner. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are being replaced by the similar temporary/contractual arrangement. Since the petitioners were out of job, the notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. They were also required to come forward with the policy in this regard. Two affidavits have been file; one by the Director General, Health Services, Haryana and another on behalf of the Govt. as noticed herein above. In the affidavit filed by the Director General, Health Services, Haryana the following averments have been made:- “2. That the Health Department is in process of getting sanction of extension of appointments of contractual employees on the post of Laboratory Technician for more than six months from the Finance Department. The petitioners would be considered for the aforesaid posts after the extension given by the Finance Department, if still required and fulfill all the terms and conditions.” As regards the policy is concerned the relevant extract of the policy is reproduced in the affidavit of the Govt., which reads as under:- “ 4. During the period of contractual engagement, the department shall, however, endeavour to fill up the vacant posts by regular method of recruitment prescribed in the rules. (5) If for any reason, the process of recruitment of regular candidate(s) can not be completed within the six months, then approval of the Finance Department shall be obtained giving full justification for CWP. No. 3671 of 2010 -3- engagement of the persons already engaged for a further period of six months or till the regular selected candidates are appointed, whichever is earlier. In this regard proposal should be sent to Finance Department for consideration in the concerned branch of Finance Department.” From the affidavit of the Director General, Health Services, Haryana it appears that the Govt. requires the services of the petitioners or similarly situated technicians and no regular appointment has been made till date. Even under the policy also, till date no regular appointment has been made. The contractual employees are to be allowed to continue. It is stated that the petitioners would be considered for extension of their engagement once the approval is granted by the Finance Department. Both the affidavits clearly establish that the Govt. does need the services of these employees in public interest, at least till the regular appointments are made. Otherwise also, it is a settled proposition of law that temporary engagement cannot be replaced by the similar arrangement. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioners, though, on contract basis and not to replace them with the similar arrangement except for unsatisfactory service or if, their services are not needed. However, the respondent-State is at liberty to make regular appointments in accordance with rules. In that eventuality the petitioners will have to make way for the regular appointees. Petitioners are also at liberty to apply for the regular appointment subject to their eligibility. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.3.2010. lucky