Civil Writ Petition No.2268 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2268 of 2009 Date of Decision 20.05.2009 Manoj Kumar and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.K.S.Banyana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents-State. ***** AJAY TEWARI, J(ORAL): This petition has been filed, challenging the action of the respondents in dispensing the services of the petitioners as well as the subsequent advertisement issued for filling up the said posts and for a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were selected on the basis of requisition sent to the employment exchange and that their services cannot be dispensed with without any regular selected persons being available to join in their place. The stand of respondents, on the contrary, is that the petitioners were engaged under 'Outsourcing Policy' (Annexure R-1), and that their services were dispensed with on the expiry of contract. It is further urged that no contractual employee has been appointed in place of the petitioners and that now by the impugned advertisement, the posts have been advertised Civil Writ Petition No.2268 of 2009 2 on regular basis. In my opinion, the prayers made by the petitioners can not be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in some similar matters which are pending, interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners. However, in the present case, it would be seen that the petitioners are admittedly out of service since November, 2008 and the writ petition has been filed on 30.01.2009. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be compared with such persons who were granted interim orders during the currency of their engagement. It would have been a different matter had some other similar engaged employees replaced the petitioners. That is not so. On the other hand, the respondents have advertised these posts to be filled on regular basis. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents. Another allegation which has been made is that the respondents have not paid the salaries to the petitioners for the period during which they actually worked. In para No.4 of the reply on merits, this fact has been denied and it has been stated that all the wages due to the petitioners for the period April 2008 to October 2008 have been drawn and disbursed to all of them. In these circumstances, I find myself unable to grant any relief to the petitioners. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. May 20, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) mamta-II JUDGE