State of Haryana State of Haryana v. Ram Narain
Case Details
RSA-391-2001 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-391-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.04.2025 Date of Decision : 29.04.2025 State of Haryana State of Haryana ....Appellant VERSUS Ram Narain ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Present: Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana for the appellant. for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). preferred by the State of Haryana against the The present appeal is preferred by the State of Haryana against the preferred by the State of Haryana against the The present appeal is Additional District judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. 2. At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the Ashish, Clerks, contends that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the Ashish, Clerks, contends pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and that respondent expired issueless. His one brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and that respondent expired issueless. His one as on date he is he is survived by one brother and sister, who are Class survived by one brother and sister, who are Class-II heirs. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for enging his declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by challenging his declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by chall declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by chall TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 2001 (O&M) -2- .1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), termination order dated 03.02.1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), .1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), termination order dated 03. ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and Rohtak. The civil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and of natural justice that the respondent was terminated after following principles of natural justice that the respondent was terminated of natural justice that the respondent was terminated after following principle from service. 4. judgment and decree dated The respondent filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated The respondent filed appeal against The respondent filed appeal against 25.11.1999 before the learned District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its 99 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its appeal by ordering his judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed the appeal by ordering his judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed wages i.e. arrears of pay along reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back-wages i.e. arrears of pay along reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back 18%. with interest @18% 5. 6. Hence the present appeal. Hence t contends that the learned First Appellate Court Learned State counsel contends that the learned First Appellate Court contends that the learned First Appellate Court Learned respondent failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the respondent failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. remained absent from duty from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. remained absent from as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent Further as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent , he from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical record, he from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical Vaid and could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of one Vaid and could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of he admitted that the respondent was his when Vaid was cross-examined, though, he admitted that the respondent was his he admitted that the respondent was his when Vaid was cross patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking medicines. 5. , learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of , learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of Per contra judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 2001 (O&M) -3- 6. erused the whole I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard learned counsel for the parties and p I have heard learned counsel for the parties and p record of the case. record of the case. 7. While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following order on 16.05.2002:- order on 16.05.2002: “Admitted. The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he ned from shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrained from shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrai shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrai recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” 8. counsel In compliance of the above referred to order learned State counsel In compliance of the above referred to order In compliance of the above referred to order instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid contends that the respondent was re-instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid contends that the respondent was re his salary. He further contends that after his re- his salary. He further contends that after his re instatement in compliance of order -instatement in compliance of order e order dated dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vide order dated dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vid dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vid 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner, was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. 9. Admittedly, the respondent was Admittedly, the respond again terminated on 30.12.2005 was again terminated on 30.12.2005 against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. He never challenged He never challenged He never challenged Transport the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Transport the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, till the date of his death i.e.08. Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, till the d ate of his death i.e.08.09.2011. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 2001 (O&M) -4- Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, which was never challenged by the respondent. which was never challenged by the respondent. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the present appeal requires no adjudication. present appeal requires no adjudication. 11. Since the prese ince the present appeal pertains to the year 2001 and requires able nt appeal pertains to the year 2001 and requires able assistance, therefore, therefore, before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciate the with the judgment, this Court appreciate the efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, respondent and his legal heirs. to bring latest information regarding the respondent and his legal heirs. to bring latest information regarding th 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 29, 2025 tripti (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document