← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18390/2026disposed of

Anil v. State Of Haryana And Others

2026-05-29Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.05.2026 Anil ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the service to the petitioner on the post of Gotakhor (Swimmer) as the petitioner fulfils all conditions and is fully eligible and competent to the post.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis by respondent No.4 on 01.10.2018 as a Swimmer. The petitioner's services were continued from time to time through different outsourcing agencies. The petitioner registered with respondent No.2-HKRN and despite due approval from respondent No.2, service of the petitioner was discontinued by respondent No.4 after 31.12.2021. The service of the petitioner was dispensed with without any show cause notice. Further, four other similarly situated employees were allowed to

-2continue by respondent No.4. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 21.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) seeking his engagement through HKRN. The petitioner even approached the Grievance Redressal & Monitoring System Haryana on 30.07.2025 as discernible from Annexures P-3 & P-4. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a legal demand notice on 05.02.2026. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.7437 of 2025 titled as Renu and others Vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected matters decided on 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-6).

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Renu's case (supra) in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana and Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively, and submit that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.4. 6.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and respondent No.4 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by this

-3Court in Renu's case (supra) and pass a speaking order after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.4. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No