Date Bandana Rani and and others v. Guru Nanak Dev U Dev University and another
Case Details
CWP-3136-2019 9 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA UNJAB & HARYANA IN T ARH AT CHANDIGARH 221 CWP CWP-3136-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2025 Date Bandana Rani and and others ...Petitioners Versus Guru Nanak Dev U Dev University and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C AN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. ***** ***** Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the or the petitioners. Mr. MK Dogra, Advocate for the resp Mr. M he respondents. ***** ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDH 1. Praye yer made in the present petition ents ition is for directing the respondents to allow the petiti petitioners to continue on the post o l the post of Assistant Professor till the regular incumbent mbent join. 2. In the index of the petition, relianc In th the reliance had been placed upon the pendency of the p f the petition i.e. CWP-5592-2017 ti and 017 titled as Gurpreet Singh and others vs. State o tate of Punjab and others and vide , the d vide order dated 06.12.2022, the present petition w tion was ordered to be heard along w e ong with the same, which has since been disposed of sed of vide judgment dated 13.08.2 the 3.08.2024, covers the case of the petitioners, which which learned counsel for the respon has respondents despite best efforts has been unable to c e to controvert regards the factual any actual position and draw out any distinctive aspects aspects in the aforementioned judgme law, judgment or cite any contrary law, relevant paras whe as whereof read thus:- “Learned counsel for th t the for the petitioners submits that the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.23 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3136-2019 9 (O&M) 2 prayer of the petitioners is th continue in service till the wo are working exists subject to conduct and they be not re contractual employees on the s Learned counsel for th that further prayer of the petit selected candidates joins, the p on the basis of length of the having lesser length of servic compared to the employee havi Learned counsel for th that as the petitioners are w keeping in view the judgment o of India in State of Punjab an others 2017 SCC 148, their cla of the pay scale along with D.A Learned counsel appe University submits that it has way of reply that petitioners w set of contractual employee conditions and they will be al till the work of the post on w subject to their satisfactory wor Learned counsel for the submits that qua the grant of m D.A., a committee has alrea appropriate order on the clai passed within a period of thr receipt of copy of this order an the said committee, the petition relief, the same will be extend further 08 weeks. s is that they should be allowed to d to he work of the post on which they they and ject to their satisfactory work and t of not replaced with another set of the same terms and conditions. mits for the petitioners further submits e petitioners is that in case, regular ular s, the petitioners should be relieved ved yee of their service and the employee t as service should be relieved first as ee having more length of service. mits for the petitioners further submits asis, are working on contractual basis, ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt and jab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and um eir claim for the grant of minimum ith D.A. should also be considered. appearing for the respondent- by it has already come on record by ners will not be replaced by another ther and ployees on the same terms and vice l be allowed to continue in service xists t on which they are working exists ry work and conduct. ther or the respondent-University further nt of minimum pay scale along with with already been constituted and an an l be e claim of the petitioners will be of three months from the date of e of rder and in case, as per the report of rt of any etitioners are found entitled for any d of extended to them within a period of Learned counsel for the submits that the said order will employees, who are already w University as of now. ther or the respondent-University further the er will be made applicable upon the eady working with the respondent- ners arned counsel for the petitioners arned counsel for the respondent- aced t the petitioners will not be replaced ctual employees on the same terms rms reet of the petitioner namely, Gurpreet 7 has already been replaced, which tion University needs reconsideration r the ement of the learned counsel for the At this stage, learned submits that though, learned University submitted that the p by another set of contractual e and conditions but one of the Singh in CWP-5592-2017 has action of the respondent-Univ keeping in view the statement respondent-University. rsity respondent-University for l Learned counsel for rievance of the petitioner-Gurpreet reet submits that the said grievan rsity d into by the respondent-University Singh will also be looked into the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.23 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3136-2019 9 (O&M) 3 and in case, it is found that s has been replaced by the anot the same terms and conditions the said petitioner-Gurpreet S given to him and in case, it petitioner-Gurpreet Singh hav reason other than just for speaking order will also be pa months. that said petitioner Gurpreet Singh ingh e another contractual employee on e on hich ditions, appropriate relief for which reet Singh is entitled for, will be l be se, it is found that services of the the any gh have been terminated for any t for replacing him, appropriate riate hree be passed within a period of three the respondent-University rsity l for for Learned counsel regular incumbent joins or there is a is a submits that in case any regula o reduce strength of the staff, length ngth reduction in work so as to redu ind the employee will be kept in mind of service rendered by the em oyees. while relieving the employees. ners arned counsel for the petitioners At this stage, learned s of e petitioners are not working as of submits that some of the petit the have been terminated due to the now as their services have shortage of work. the rsity respondent-University for l Learned counsel for the rk of the said posts on which the submits that in case work of g exists as of now and respondent- petitioners were working exist the advertisement for appointing the University issues an advert sts, the claim of the petitioners will will personnel for the said posts, th tory basis subject to their satisfactory be considered on priority basi work and conduct. for the petitioners submits that that ement made by learned counsel for l for y be ty, present petitions may kindly be not pressed any further but liberty erty rs that in case, any order passed by d by the the sity respondent-University the ail an appropriate remedy for the
Decision
Learned counsel for t keeping in view the statement the respondent-University, pre disposed of having been not p be given to the petitioners that the petitioners, they can avail an redressal of the same. causes prejudice to Keeping in view the disposed of having been not terms with liberty as prayed for are the above, present petitions are ove n not pressed any further in above yed for.” 3. The petition is disposed of in terms of The p rms of Gurpreet Singh (supra). 22.01.2025 ashok Whet Whether speaking Whether reportable Whet (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No : : ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.23 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document