Jeet Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 12830-C of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 4128 of 2010(O&M) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant- plaintiff, Jeet Ram, against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2010 passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which his appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division)Kurukshetra, dismissing his suit for declaration that he is entitled to be regularized in service under the respondents-defendants with effect from 31.1.1996/11.2.2003/30.9.2003, when his juniors had been regularized and that he is entitled to the consequent benefits of regularization of his service, including the arrears of increments etc., along with interest at the Regular Second Appeal No. 4128 of 2010 -2- rate of 18% per annum with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to regularize his services from the said date and to pay him the said benefits and restraining them from terminating his services illegally and forcibly, was dismissed. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he was appointed on daily wages in May, 1980 by the defendants and since then he is continuously working as such. He belong to Group 'D' i.e. Class IV employee and is performing his duties with hard labour and honestly. Instructions were issued by the State of Haryana from time to time, including the instructions dated 27.5.1993, for the regularization of the services of those daily wagers, who have completed the three years of service on 31.1.1996 and worked for 240 days in a Calendar year. As per the subsequent instructions, services of those daily wagers, who have completed three years of service on 31.1.1996 were to be regularized. He fulfills all those conditions and as such he is entitled to the regularization of his services. He is also entitled to all the consequential benefits, including the arrears of increments etc. The services of those persons, who were junior to him have already been regularized by the defendants. They want to terminate his services forcibly and illegally without any right, title or interest. Therefore, he filed the present suit, after serving a legal notice under Section 80 CPC The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement, they admitted the issuance of instructions from time to time for the regularization of the service of the daily wagers. They denied the other contentions of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff was engaged only as casual labourer from time to time as per the requirement of Regular Second Appeal No. 4128 of 2010 -3- seasonal work. He did not work continuously. He is not eligible for regularization of his services. He has no locus standi to file this suit and cannot maintain the same. They also pleaded that the plaintiff along with the other persons had stolen the wood of the Forest Department, regarding which departmental enquiry was conducted and FIR was lodged against him and others on 13.4.2000. Thereafter, the plaintiff left the work at his own and rejoined his duty on 1.6.2002. He worked with long breaks in his service. In the replication to the written statement, the plaintiff denied all the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff was appointed on daily wages in May, 1980 under the defendants as alleged?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be regularized in service under the defendants w.e.f. 31.1.1996 or 11.2.2003 or

30.9.2003?OPP

3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to all service benefits i.e. Arrears, bonus, seniority, promotion along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as alleged?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court, if so, its effect? OPD Regular Second Appeal No. 4128 of 2010 -4-

6. Relief To succeed in the suit, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. Daria Singh, PW-2 and Subhash Chand, PW-3. On the other hand, defendants examined Sandeep Singh DW-1 and Jagdish Chand-DW-2. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing counsel for the plaintiff and Government Pleader for the respondents, learned trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and resultantly dismissed his suit. The first appeal preferred by him was also dismissed as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. It has been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that she is not pressing this appeal so far as the same is directed against the judgments of the lower courts refusing the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the regularization of his services. She submitted that the defendants cannot terminate the services of the plaintiff after the order was passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19641 of 1998, which was filed by the plaintiff and others against the defendants. The plaintiff was appointed on daily wages and he cannot be made to go in order to accommodate the other persons. The relevant portion of the order passed in the above writ petition is reproduced below:- “ In view of the statement of the counsel for the petitioners and stand taken in the written statement by the respondents, this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that since services of the petitioners have not terminated they shall be allowed to join, if they are not working already. Petitioners are Regular Second Appeal No. 4128 of 2010 -5- relegated to the remedy of seeking relief under the common law in respect of claim of regularization of services.” It is very much clear from that order that the only relief granted to the plaintiff was that he was allowed to join if his services had not already been terminated. He was relegated to seek the relief under the common law in respect of claim of regularization of his services. This order cannot stand in the way of the defendants to terminate his services, in accordance with the terms of his appointment. Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the lower courts and it is not the case of the plaintiff that there is misreading of the evidence or that the findings recorded are perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. November 19, 2010 PARAMJIT (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE