Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Rekha Sharma (Petitioner) under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the speaking order dated 04.02.2026 passed by respondent No.3, the Haryana State Council for Child Welfare (HSCCW).
  • Petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in Anganwadi Training Centres (AWTC) on 30.12.1996 (letter annexed as P‑1) on a temporary, non‑pensionable basis, terminable with 15 days’ notice.
  • The AWTC scheme, funded by the Government of India under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), was approved to run only up to 31.03.2020. No grant‑in‑aid was received for FY 2019‑20 and 2020‑21, leading to closure of all AWTCs on 23.11.2020.
  • HSCCW issued a termination notice on 23.11.2020, effective 09.12.2020 (Annexure P‑3). A list of 48 former employees who were re‑adjusted to other posts was issued (Annexure P‑4).
  • Petitioner, with 24 years of continuous service, was excluded from the re‑adjustment list. She filed a representation on 26.10.2021 (Annexure P‑5) and a RTI request (Annexure P‑6) but received no satisfactory response.
  • A related RTI appeal (CWP‑21683‑2023) was directed to the State Information Commissioner (SIC) on 04.10.2023 (Annexure P‑9). The SIC was instructed to decide the second appeal expeditiously.
  • Petitioner filed another representation on 25.10.2024 (Annexure P‑12). The High Court, in CWP No. 11100 of 2025, ordered on 24.04.2025 (Annexure P‑13) that HSCCW treat the petition as a representation and decide it with a reasoned order within three months.
  • HSCCW failed to comply; petitioner issued a legal notice and filed contempt petition COCP No. 6006 of 2025 on 04.12.2025. During pendency, HSCCW issued the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P‑15) upholding termination. The contempt petition was disposed on 16.02.2026 (Annexure P‑14).
  • Respondents argued that the scheme was centrally funded, funds ceased, and the appointment terms allowed termination without cause. They also claimed the petitioner was not entitled to adjustment as the scheme was closed.
  • The Court examined Supreme Court precedents (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar; State of H.P. v. Nodha Ram; Raj Rani v. State of Haryana) affirming that temporary project employees have no vested right to continuation once the scheme ends due to lack of funds.
  • The Court noted that the humanitarian adjustment of 48 employees was a discretionary, one‑time benevolent measure, subject to vacancy and suitability. No vacancy existed at Bhiwani, the location the petitioner preferred.
  • The Court held that the petitioner’s services were validly terminated on 09.12.2020, that no legal right to re‑employment survived, and that the humanitarian adjustment could not be reopened in 2026.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Writ Petition is dismissed.
  • All pending applications, if any, are also disposed.

Topics: Employment Law, Government Scheme Closure