Punjab-Haryana High Court
St.Pb vs Harpal Kaur on 22 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740
RSA No.792
792 of 2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.
No.792 of 2006 (O&M)
Reserved on:20
on:20.11.2024
Pronounced on:2
on:22.11.2024
State of Punjab and others ...Appellants
Vs
Harpal Kaur Brar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilshad S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent.
-.-
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. The instant regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants-- defendants against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2005 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent--plaintiff plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15 15.03.2005 .03.2005 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by her seeking declaration to the effect that she was entitled to her posting as Lecturer in Political Science as well as arrears of pay from the date of her joini joining ng after availing leave or from the date she gave ve letter dated 223.12.1997 .12.1997 regarding her joining along with all consequential benefits along with interest @18% per annum,, has been allowed while decreeing the aforesaid suit of the respondent--plaintiff.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -2-
2. In brief, brief the facts are that on 01.08.1974, the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff was appointed as Lecturer of Political Science in Guru Gobind Singh College, Giddarbaha, which, which later on, was taken over by the Government of Punjab and the name of the college was changed as Baba Siri Chand Ji Sarka Sarkari ri College, Sardargarh (Bathinda).
(Bathinda) Vide letter dated 24.08.1992, she was confirmed by the Managing Director of the Guru Gobind Singh College along with other staff and was also given selection grades as applicable from time to time. However, she proceede proceeded d on long leave for a period of five years from 01.08.1995 to 31.07.2000, which was duly sanctioned by the then Principal of the college. In the interregnum, the college was taken over by the Government of Punjab. It was further pleaded case of the respondent--plaintiff plaintiff that vide application dated 05.04.1997 (Ex.P6) (Ex.P6), she approached the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the College and submitted her option to be retained in government service and also requested the Principal to allow her to join her dut duties but no order was passed on her application.
application. She also approached the DPI, Chief Minister and Management of the college but no action was taken by any one. She again approached the Principal vide letter dated 23.12.1997 that she may be allowed to join her duties but the Principal did not act upon her request by stating that she did not come in person to join her duties. However after a lapse of about two and half months, months, appellant appellant-defendant No.4 vide letter dated 06.03.1998 wrote to the DPI that he has no objection if the respondent--plaintiff plaintiff is allowed to join but thereafter, no further action was taken by the appellants-defendants.
appellants Since the respondent
respondent-plaintiff
plaintiff was not
allowed to join by the appellants-defendants, a defendants, she gave her joining report on 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -3- 01.08.2000 i.e. after expiry of her leave. At that time, Sh. Hakam Singh Brar, Principal was on leave and Sh. D.L. Bansal was officiating as Principal, who had given his remarks on the joining report th that at Sh. Hakam Singh Brar will take a decision in the said matter. She also served a notice under Section 80 CPC on the appellants-defendants appellants defendants on 01.09.2000 but to no avail. It is in this backdrop of the matter, the suit was filed.
3. The appellants-defendants appellants appeared and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections objection qua maintainability and jurisdiction. On merit, it was contested that registered letter dated 26.03.1997 regarding taking over of the college by the Punjab Government was sent on the address ress of respondent--plaintiff,, which came back undelivered. Thereafter, a Peon of the college was sent to her various addresses but she could not be traced out anywhere. Again a letter dated 17.04.1997 was sent to her for giving her option whether she wanted to be retained in service in the college taken over by the Punjab Government but she did not turn uup p and therefore, her leave was cancelled. It was further stated that again a letter dated 22.05.1997 was sent at her home address but she did not turn up to sign the requisite undertaking, which was mandatory for every employee. A notice was also published publish in the Punjabi Tribune on 24.06.1997 but despite that, she did not join her duties and consequently, the Managing Committee of Guru Gobind Singh College, Giddarbaha passed a resolution dated 09.07.1997 terminating her services by declaring that she will willfully fully abandoned the job.
4. The respondent-plaintiff respondent filed the replication denying all averments made in the written statement.
3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -4-
5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues including relief. Parties led their respective evidence and on appreciation of the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed ismissed the suit, however, the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was allowed and the suit of the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff was decreed.
6. Learned State counsel nsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-- defendants argued argue that the learned lower Appellate Court gravely erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which afterr appreciating the evidence led by both the parties rightly concluded that non-appearance appearance of the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff in the witness box to support her case wass fatal and since, she did not turn up to join her services despite several correspondences and issuance issuance of publication in the newspaper, her services were terminated by resolving that she deemed to have abandoned her job. It was further argued that the college was taken over by the Punjab Government on 20.10 20.10.1997 .1997 whereas services of the respondent--plaintiff were terminated on 09.07.1997 and therefore, she was not entitled to any relief as sought in the present suit.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is based upon correct appreciation of fact and law and therefore, the same does not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through paper book with their able assistance.
4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -5-
9. This Court vide order dated 16.11.2006 while admitting the instant appeal has framed the following substantial question of law:
law:-
"Whether Whether the lower Appellate Court could have set aside an order of termination which was not even challenged by the plaintiff in the suit?"
?"
10. A perusal of the record of the case reveals that the appellants-- defendants had filed the written statement wherein they took only preliminary objections, however, para wise reply to the plaint was not filed by them, m, meaning thereby, on merit, averments of the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff were not specifically denied. It is settled law that written statement must have para-wise wise reply to the plaint specifically denying the averments made in the plaint and in the absence of the same, pleadings in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. The requirements of Order 8 Rules 3 & 5 of the Civil Procedure Code are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Thangam and another Vs. Navamani Ammal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 227 has held that in the absence of para-wise para wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras. The college was taken over by the Punjab Government on 20.10.1997 and it it was specifically pleaded case of the respondent respondent-plaintiff ntiff that on 05.04.1997 (Ex.P6), she wrote a letter to the Chairman stating therein that though she did not receive the 'option letter', however, she gives her option to be retained in service. She again approached the 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -6- Management of the College on 23.12.1997 23.12.1997 seeking permission to join her duties. However, the pleaded case of the appellants appellants-defendants defendants was that they informed the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff about taking over of the college by the Punjab Government and option was sought from employee whether they were ere willing to be retained in service on taking over of the college by the Punjab Government on 26.03.1997 and 17.04.1997 but she did not turn up to give her option in affirmative or negative. Even a notice was also published in the Punjabi Tribune on 24.06.1997 24.06.1997 in this regard. When she did not turn up, her services were terminated by passing a resolution dated 09.07.1997 by observing that she has abandoned her duties. In the absence of the para-wise para wise written statement, the pleadings in the plaint that tthe he respondent--plaintiff plaintiff sent a letter dated 05.04.1997 (Ex.P6) giving her option to be retained in service and again approached the appellants appellants--
defendants on 23.12.1997 for the said purpose, are deemed to be admitted. If it is admitted that on 05.04.1997, the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff had approached the Management for accepting her option to be retained in service on taking over of the college by the Punjab Government then it is beyond comprehension why a letter dated 17.04.1997 was issued by the Management to the t respondent-plaintiff ff for giving her option and wh whyy they had not acted upon the letter given by her on 05.04.1997. Moreover, it is nowhere the pleaded case of the appellants appellants-defendants defendants that when the respondent--plaintiff plaintiff again approached the appellants appellants-defendants efendants on 23.12.1997 for accepting her joining, she was duly informed by them that her services have already been terminated on 09.07.1997 09.07.1997.. Rather it was the pleaded case of the appellants-defendants defendants that services of the respondent respondent--
6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -7- plaintiff were terminated terminated vide resolution dat dated ed 09.07.1997 and therefore, onus to prove the said factum was upon them that the termination order was passed after conducting an inquiry and affording due opportunity to the delinquent official to defend the charges framed agains against him/her,, as has been envisaged under the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974) 1974).. Furthermore, order of termination dated 09.07.1997 was in the knowledge of the respondent respondent--
plaintiff so that she could challenge the same before the learned trial Court. Rule 4 (1) of the Act of 1974 envisages that the penalty of dismissal or removal from service shall not be imposed unless the same is approved by the Director, which approval is conspicuously m missing issing in the case at hand and therefore, this Court does not find any fault in the finding rendered by the learned lower Appellate Court qua setting aside the order of termination dated 09.07.1997.
11. The respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff had moved an application under O Order rder 12 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC where in para 2 (ix) and (x), the respondent--plaintiff had put following questions to the appellants-- defendants:
defendants:-
"(ix)
(ix) Whether Whether is it correct that when this fact came to the knowledge of plaintiff that the college is being taken over by the government, the plaintiff approached the college authorities/Govt. that she may be allowed to join, but nothing was heard?
(x) Whether is is it correct that the plaintiff again approached the Principal through letter dated 23.12.1997 that she may be allowed to join and the Principal on that letter written to the defendant No.4 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -8-
vide his letter No.PF/HKB/110-111 No.PF/HKB/110 111 dated 06.03.1998 to the DPI that he has no objection if the plaintiff is allowed to join?
12. A perusal of the zimini order dated 03.03.2003 passed by the learned trial Court reveals that despite last opportunity reply was not filed and defendants had availed 7 opportunities for filing reply to the application under Order 12 Rule 1 CPC, but same was not filed. As such, the learned trial Court satisfied that the defendants had admitted the contents of the application and they did not want to say anything in this connection. The findings rendered by the learned lower Appellate Court is based on the deemed admission of documents exhibited by the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff in support of her pleadings, which in the opinion of this Court, do not require interference in the instant appeal.
13. In n view of the judgments passed passed by the Hon' Hon'ble Supreme Court in n Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh Singh (dead) through LRs and others others,, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, however, since this Court vide order dated 16.11.2006 has already framed the substantial question of law as reproduced above, the same is answered against the appellants-defendants defendants and in favour of the respondent respondent-plaintiff.
14. Consequently this Court does nott find any illegality and perversity Consequently, in the judgment and decree rendered by the learned lower Appellate Court Court,, 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:156740 RSA No.792 792 of 2006 (O&M) -9- which is based upon correct appreciation of facts and law. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the instant regular second appea appeall stands dismissed.
(HARPREET HARPREET SINGH BRAR BRAR) JUDGE November 22, 2 2024 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 10:27:01 :::