Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Dharampal And Others on 15 January, 2009
R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.1.2009
State of Haryana and others
....Appellants
Versus
Dharampal and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 8570-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.
It has been averred in the application that the appellants after the decision of the case, received the certified copy of the judgment and decree. The matter was sent for necessary deliberations in the department and due to the administrative procedure, the delay of 8 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.
The notice of the application was issued.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- applicant/respondents has not opposed the application for condoning the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.
Consequently, this application is allowed and the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008 (O&M)-2- R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008
This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Dharampal and others, R.S.A. No. 1516 of 2008 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Devender Kumar and R.S.A. No. 1977 of 2008 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Sant Lal and another, as common questions of law and fact are involved.
For brevity sake, facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008.
This regular second appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 26.7.2006 and 2.6.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for declaration that they are entitled to regularisation of their services from due date, has been ordered to be decreed.
The case set up by the plaintiffs was that their services have been regularised by the department but not from the date to which they were entitled. It has been claimed by the plaintiff/respondents that they were entitled to regularisation, on compleation of 240 days as was done in the case of other employees of the department. In support, they had placed on record copy of regularisation order of the other employees wherein instruction No. 1682-92/A-3 HAR dated 19.2.1979 was relied upon and were ordered to be regularised on completion of 240 days service.
The plea of the appellant/defendants that the suit was time barred was rejected by the learned Courts below by holding that the regularisation from the later date affected their right of salary every month and thus, they had a recurring cause of action to maintain the R.S.A. No. 2896 of 2008 (O&M) -3- suit as every month new cause of action accrued to the plaintiff/respondents.
The learned Courts below have, however, restricted the relief of arrear to three years and two months prior the date of filing of the suit along with interest @ 9% per annum.
The plea of the appellants that the suit was time barred cannot be accepted in view of finding recorded by learned Courts below.
The other contention of the learned Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, that there were no instructions qua regularisation on completion of 240 days also cannot be accepted as the instructions dated 19.2.1979 were produced in this Court in C.W.P. No. 1437 of 1988 Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others decided on 13.7.2005, in which directions were issued by this Court for regularisation of services of the petitioner therein on completion of 240 days of service by relying on instruction referred to above.
The judgment/decree passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others C.W.P. No. 1437 of 1988 decided on 13.7.2005.
As the question of law as raised already stands adjudicated by this Court, thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the appeal.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 15, 2009 R.S.