IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2009 Date of decision: 09.08.2011 Damodar Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners state that they have requisite qualification and experience and were appointed as Laboratory Technicians in response to an advertisement issued on 18.06.2008 by respondent No. 3. Concededly, this appointment was on contractual basis. It was on the basis of walk-in interview. The petitioners were paid salary at DC rate and were, thus, being paid ` 9000/- in lump sum per month. The petitioner claimed that they were given assurance that they would be paid wages till the time regular appointments are made by the Government. Subsequently, the salary was reduced to ` 8,000/- per month. The petitioners state that perhaps this was due to deduction of provident fund from the salary payable. The petitioners state that they have been given extension for six months and are continuing to work since June 2008. Suddenly Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2009 -2- w.e.f. 24.08.2009, their salary has been reduced. They are being paid sum of ` 7200/- instead of ` 8000/- per month. This is less by 10%. There are some other persons in different districts, who are being paid ` 8000/- per month. The petitioners filed representation and have now filed the writ petition with regard to the same matter. The respondent/Civil Surgeon has filed a reply to state that the petitioners are concealing the real facts for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is pointed out that after completion of contract period of six months, the petitioners were relieved by their concerned Incharge of the institutions as further sanction of the competent authority was not received till date. The petitioner has filed CWP No. 3671 of 2010, which was pending at the time of filing the reply and has by now been disposed of with the direction that the petitioners be allowed to continue till the regular selection is made. The respondents have also stated that there is no deduction of 10% of the salary as has been alleged. Written statement is also filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. The allegation made in the petition of bungling against respondent No. 4 has been specifically denied. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rathee has pointed out to the agreement, Annexure P-7, which would clearly show that the petitioners were employed on contract basis through service provider. Annexure P-11 relied upon by the petitioner to say that they are employee of CMO is misplaced and misconceived as this is a communication addressed by the Civil Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2009 -3- Surgeon to the CMO and SMO regarding deploying the persons for a period of six months or till any regular appointment was made. It is clearly mentioned therein that the persons mentioned in the communication were being sent to CMO and SMO by M/s Braham Jyoti Educational Society (Registered), V.P.O. Asawta, Teshil and District Palwal as per the DC rate of ` 8,000/- per month. In view of the factual position, obviously the petitioners cannot claim to be employees of the respondent-State or CMO. The reference by the counsel for the petitioners to the cheques issued by the CMO would not change the nature of their appointment. If the petitioners are being paid any less salary, they will have a grievance against their employer. The writ petition seems to be inappropriate remedy, which the petitioners have invoked. The petitioners, if so advised, may have resort to their alternative remedy to claim salary in terms of their employment, if any. Dismissed. August 09, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE