Kapil vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court held that the petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, which stated that the petitioner had been taken back into service as a Tubewell Operator/Jalkarmi and had been handed over the keys of the booster pump in Gram Panchayat Ladiaka, where he was working. The affidavit further detailed the benefits being provided to Tubewell Operators/Jalkarmis by the State Government and the establishment of an 8-hour work timetable by the Gram Panchayat. In light of the petitioner's reinstatement and resumption of duties, the Court concluded that nothing further survived for adjudication in the present petition. Therefore, the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner, Kapil, invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3, which allegedly resulted in his illegal removal from the post of Tubewell Operator. The respondents filed an affidavit stating that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Palwal, had informed them that the petitioner had been taken back into service as a Tubewell Operator/Jalkarmi and handed over the keys to the booster pump in Gram Panchayat Ladiaka, where he was working. The affidavit also detailed benefits provided to Tubewell Operators/Jalkarmis by the State Government, including salary increases, EPF, ESI, financial assistance, and benefits under the Dayalu-II scheme. It further stated that Gram Panchayats were empowered to issue 8-hour timetables for tubewell operations and fix work schedules. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Palwal, had informed the deponent's office that Gram Panchayat Ladiaka had prepared an 8-hour timetable for tubewell operations and related works.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, which allegedly led to the petitioner's removal from the post of Tubewell Operator, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the impugned order resulted in his illegal removal from service. The respondents, in their affidavit, contended that the petitioner had been reinstated in service as a Tubewell Operator/Jalkarmi and was actively performing his duties as per a prepared 8-hour timetable. They submitted that the State Government had decided to provide various benefits to Tubewell Operators/Jalkarmis, including salary increases and EPF/ESI contributions, and had empowered Gram Panchayats to fix work schedules. The respondents asserted that the order passed by the Court on 08.09.2025 had been complied with in light of these submissions.