Satish v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-6599-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Satish ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to take the petitioner on the Pay Roll of the Municipal Corporation, Karnal as Safai Karamchari in view of the Policy dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Govt. of Haryana and further direct respondent No.4 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in the month of August, 2020 (Annexure P-6) for taking the petitioner on the Roll of Municipal Corporation being fully eligible Safai Karamchari in terms of Policy dated 06.09.2019. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined the Municipal Corporation, Karnal as a contract Safai Karamchari in the year 2018 through an outsourcing agency i.e. M/s. Munish Ahmed Contractor, and later through M/s. Sona

Enterprises and he continued to work without any break until July, 2020, as is evident from Annexure P-1. He further submits that during this period the petitioner was also a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and the provident fund contributions were regularly deducted from his salary, showing that he was continuously working with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of Haryana issued a policy dated 06.09.2019 providing that Safai Karamcharis who were working through outsourcing agencies between 24.05.2018 and 06.09.2019 were to be taken on the roll of the Municipal Corporation and the respondents implemented this policy till July, 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that although the petitioner fulfilled all the required conditions under the said policy and submitted all the necessary documents, however, his name was wrongly placed in the list of ineligible candidates. He further submits that the petitioner filed an appeal in August, 2020 (Annexure P-6) before respondent No.4, however the same has not been decided till date, while about 202 other similarly placed persons were taken on the pay roll of the Municipal Corporation in a pick-and-choose manner.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 - State while Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 and submits that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to

respondent No.4 to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-6), in a time bound manner.

5.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without commenting upon merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of and respondent No.4 is directed to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-6) in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondent No.4. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 06.03.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No