R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.9.2008 Pala Ram ...Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having lost before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.6.2007 passed by the District Judge, Jind affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jind dated 22.3.2005 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 11.8.1997 passed by defendant No.2 terminating the services of the plaintiff as a part time Water Carrier w.e.f. 21.7.1997 was illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed as a part R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2007 -2- time Water Carrier in Police Station City, Jind, in the month of April, 1993 by defendant No.2 in place of Bir Bhan. However, the formal order of his appointment was issued on 14.9.1993 showing his appointment w.e.f. 1.9.1993. He was being paid salary at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind from time to time. It was further pleaded that though the plaintiff was doing the job as a part time Water Carrier, yet he was put to 12 hours job every day and his request either to increase the salary or to reduce his working hours offended Moharir Head Constable (MHC) of Police Station City, Jind. According to the plaintiff, on 21.7.1997 when he came to attend his office, he was not allowed to work by the MHC saying that his services were no longer required. The plaintiff made a representation dated 8.6.1998 to defendant No.2 but he was informed that his services had been terminated w.e.f. 21.7.1997 vide order dated 11.8.1997 and in his place one Shamsher Singh had been appointed. It was also pleaded that before terminating the services of the plaintiff, the proper procedure as established by law was not followed and even the legal notice dated 7.9.1998 failed to evoke any positive response. To controvert the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement taking various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiff absented himself from duty and when he could not be traced despite search, he was reported as absent from duty vide Rapat No. 58 dated 20.7.1997. The plaintiff absented himself during summers when his services were most required. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not working against a regular sanctioned post and his services were rightly dispensed with by the defendants. R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2007 -3- The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties returned a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the impugned order dated 11.8.1997 passed by defendant No.2 terminating his services was illegal, null and void. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.2005. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that both the courts had wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, he could not pin-point any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The lower appellate court while rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff, in paras 21 and 22 of its judgment had noticed as under:- “21. Protection available to a Govt. service in terms of Article 311 would not enure to the plaintiff for the following reasons: (i) the plaintiff had not been appointed on a cadre post and thus was having no right to retain the post; (ii) it was not a regular employment but was a part time employment in the nature of a R.S.A. No. 2988 of 2007 -4- water carrier; (iii) appointment was made by the Superintendent of Police. Services of the plaintiff had also been done away by the said authority only; (iv) the plaintiff was to be paid from the contingency fund. In other words no funds had been made available by the Government for the post; and (v) Payment was being made on the basis of daily wages at the Collector's rates fixed from time to time. 22. The plaintiff has failed to prove that his services were terminated by the Moharrir Head Constable. Rather, the order dated 11.8.1997 (Ex.P7) reveals that vide order (Ex.P7) services of Pala Ram were dispensed with w.e.f. 21.7.1997 as he had not been attending to his duties.” The lower appellate court further held that the plaintiff had even no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. September 22, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE