IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3373 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2009 Umesh Kumar ... PETITIONER Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who was engaged as Assistant Lineman on contract basis for a period of six months on D.C rates, has filed this petition for directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue working against his post till the regular appointments are made. 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 petitioner. 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 CWP No. 3373 of 2009 -2- contractor, who will provide manpower to the Nigam, gives the preference to the petitioner for hiring his services. If the petitioner 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 :- “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.” In view of the aforesaid statement already made on behalf of the respondent-Nigam in the above mentioned writ petition, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition. Dismissed as not pressed. November 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE