Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Bijender Singh And Others on 10 December, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (O & M)
DECIDED ON : 10.12.2009
State of Haryana and others
...Petitioners
versus
Bijender Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present : Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.
SABINA, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras No.2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under :
"2. Plaintiff No.1 is working as Tyre man in Rohtak Depot, plaintiff No.2 is working as helper mechanic in Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, Rohtak, plaintiff R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -2- no.3 is working as helper mechanic in Central Workshop Hisar, plaintiff No.4 is working as helper mechanic in Haryana Roadways, Karnal Depot, plaintiff No.5 is working as a helper in Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, Rohtak and plaintiff No.6 is working as a helper mechanic in Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, Rohtak and initially appointed at Rohtak Depot, Rohtak. It is submitted that their services were regularized in view of the Haryana Govt. letter No. 10843-62/E-1/E-4 dated 05.06.1992, issued by the Joint State Transport Controller, Haryana, Chandigarh. They have been performing their duties honestly, sincerely and up to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. They have not been granted the arrears on account of benefit of seniority etc. from 1.5.1992 to 1.2.1996, whereas all other employees have been regularized in view of the above letter dated 5.6.92 and have already been granted arrears etc. They made representation but their request was not accepted. Hence, this suit.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The defendants contested the suit and have filed joint written statement pleading therein that the initial date of appointment as daily wages of the plaintiffs are as under :R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -3-
Name of the plaintiffs Date of Initial Post appointment
1. Sh. Bijender Singh 1.7.1990 Helper Tyreman (DW)
2. Sh.Suresh Pal 1.3.1989 Helper (DW)
3. Sh.Raghbir Singh 18.8.1989 Helper (DW)
4. Sh.Jai Pal 16.3.1988 Helper (DW)
5. Sh.Ashok Kumar 9.5.1991 Helper (DW)
6. Sh.Prema Nand 1.9.1988 Helper (DW) It is submitted that at the time of accepting S.L.P filed by the State, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to prepare tentative list of daily wages and the services were ordered to be regularized according to their seniority against the post falling vacant and in compliance of that judgment seniority inter-se of the daily wages was prepared. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 5.6.1992, the Joint State Transport Controller, Haryana asked the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak, to regularize the services of the plaintiffs along with many other employees. Since the posts for which the plaintiffs were to be regularized were not vacant, the services of the plaintiffs were not regularized by the office of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak, wrote a letter dated 9.6.1992 to the Transport Commissioner, Haryana to create the additional posts for which the R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -4- services of the plaintiffs could be regularized. The services of the plaintiffs were regularized w.e.f 1.2.1996 in view of the Govt. Instructions bearing no.
6/38/95-2 GSI dated 7.3.1996. Other averments of the suit were also denied.
4. Replication was filed".
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be regularized w.e.f 1.5.92 to 1.2.96 as mentioned in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction to the extent and in the manner as alleged in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice ?
OPD
6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -5-
7. Whether plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own acts and conducts ? OPD
9. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time ? OPD
10. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD
11. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and vexations ? OPD
12. Relief.
After hearing learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled for regularization of their services w.e.f 1.5.1992, with all consequential benefits. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were regularized w.e.f 1.2.1996. However, the juniors to the plaintiffs were regularized before the plaintiffs.
In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiffs were entitled for regularization of their services w.e.f 1.5.1992 i.e the date when the juniors to the plaintiffs were regularized. The learned District Judge has observed in the R.S.A NO. 4603 OF 2009 (o & m) -6- judgment with similarly situated employees had filed civil suit No.1 of 1998 claiming similar relief. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2001 (Exhibit P-15). The said employees were held entitled for regularization of their services w.e.f 1.5.1992 along with all consequential benefits. The said judgment and decree were upheld by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2003 (Exhibit P-16).
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
DECEMBER 10, 2009 (SABINA) shalini JUDGE