CWP No.9409 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.9409 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.11.2010 Sunil Kumar and others ..............Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI : Present:- Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5 Ms. Sandeepta Mehta, Advocates, for respondents No.6 to 14 --- PERMOD KOHLI, J (ORAL) : The petitioners were engaged by the Panchayats (respondents No.6 to 14) under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojna (RGGVY) Scheme for management of rural electricity distribution functions. It is admitted case of the parties that respondents No.2 to 5 entered into memorandum of understanding with various panchayats (Annexure P-1) whereunder the panchayats were given franchisee for performance of various obligations under the memorandum of understanding. The panchayats in turn entered into memorandum of understanding with the petitioners for their engagement for a period of one year for discharging their duties in terms of the franchisee agreement. It is also admitted case of the parties that the petitioners were engaged in the month of June 2007. The contract engagement was for a period of one year. The grievance CWP No.9409 of 2009 -2- of the petitioners is that they have been paid salary/emoluments only upto 31st March, 2008 and thereafter, no amount has been paid to them. The petitioners claim that they have been continuously working even beyond the period of engagement, which was for a period of one year. This position is, however, seriously disputed both by the panchayats as also by respondents No.2 to 5. As per the stand of respondents No.2 to 4, the petitioners have worked only upto 31st March, 2008. However, the stand of the panchayats is that they have performed their duties upto one year under the franchise agreement. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners have performed their obligations under the agreement beyond one year. Even otherwise also since the engagement was only for a period of one year, the panchayats could not have allowed them to continue under the agreement beyond the period of one year. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the salary/emoluments, at least, for a period of one year i.e. upto ending May 2008. The panchayats shall disburse the wages to the petitioners accordingly. The panchayats, however, on the strength of the franchise agreement with respondents No.2 to 5 may claim the same from these respondents on furnishing requisite proof. Let, the wages be disbursed within a period of two months from today. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 9th Nov., 2010 akm