Hemant Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 Hemant Kumar .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State Of Haryana And Ors.

..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's pending salary/remuneration for the period from October 2023 to 07.03.2026, along with travelling allowance and annual enhancement dues. A further prayer has been made for directing the

respondents to continue or re-engage the petitioner as a Monitoring Supervisor/Monitoring Officer against the continuing work under the subsisting Prime Minister Poshan/Mid-Day Meal Scheme.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that under the Prime Minister Poshan/Mid-Day Meal Scheme, several employees were engaged on a contractual basis against different posts, and their tenure has been extended from time to time. The petitioner has furnished the particulars of certain similarly situated employees in paragraph No. 27 of the paper-book, who continue to work despite the fact that their contracts with the outsourcing agency have expired and have not been extended. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of the said employees. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-16, a communication dated 29.08.2025, whereby the competent authority clarified the factual and legal position. The petitioner also served a legal notice dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-19), which has remained unheeded.

2.1.

At this stage, 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 a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana puts in appearance and accept notice on behalf of for respondent-State and submits that he has

no objection if the present petition be treated as comprehensive representation and be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent(s)/competent authority. 5.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the precedent of similarly situated employees 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 the respondents.

6.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 03.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No