R.S.A.No.427 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R.S.A.No.427 of 2006 Date of Decision : October 27, 2006. Om Parkash Singh ..... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia * * * Present : Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * P.S.Patwalia, J. (Oral) : The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against concurrent findings recorded by the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming regularisation with effect from 17.6.1981 as a Motor Mate, Grade-II. It is otherwise the admitted position that the plaintiff who was a work charge employee with the respondent-State had been regularised as a Beldar vide order dated 3.12.1994 with effect from 1.9.1992. The suit claiming regularisation against the post of Motor Mate, Grade-I was filed in the year 2001. The courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the present suit filed after a period of nine years of the date of regularisation, was beyond the period of R.S.A.No.427 of 2006 2 limitation and was therefore liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Even otherwise the trial court did not find any merit in the claim of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had not placed on the record his original appointment letter showing him to be appointed as a Motor Mate. He also failed to produce any order when any person junior to him was appointed as Motor Mate. The relevant observations of the trial court to this effect are as hereunder :- “11. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not placed on record the appointment letter whereby he was appointed as Motor Mate on regular basis, relevant letters showing break in the service. Even the pleadings in this regard are vague and absurd. Even he has failed to produce the order whereby he was suspended on account of mis-behaviour and re-instated. Even he has not pleaded the date when junior person were promoted and what are their names. No order or record has been produced regarding promotion of his juniors. In the absence of any document in this regard, it cannot be presumed that he was appointed on regular basis. It is well settled law that the plaintiff has to stand on his legs and he has to prove his own case. He cannot take benefit of the weaknesses of the defendants. Service book and the entries therein do not show the terms and conditions of the service. Keeping in view the above discussion, service of the plaintiff cannot be regularized from R.S.A.No.427 of 2006 3 17.6.1981 as Motor Mate and he is not entitled to promotion as Motor Mate, Grade-I, with retrospective effect. Hence issue No.1, 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.” The suit of the plaintiff was therefore dismissed by the trial court. The said judgment was affirmed by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended, on the basis of some extracts of the service book which are exhibited on the record, that the plaintiff had been appointed as a Motor Mate in the year 1982. There are some remarks in the service book to that effect. Be that as it may, even if it is presumed that some daily wage appointment or work charge employment was given to the plaintiff against the post of Motor Mate for some period in the year 1982, it would not ipso facto clothe the plaintiff with a right to be regularised on that post. The plaintiff was ultimately regularised in the year 1994 against the post which was available and which, according to the department, fell to his due. The said order of regularisation has not even been challenged. Still further the plaintiff has not been able to show any person who may have been appointed after the appointment of the plaintiff and who had been regularised against the post of Motor Mate. Thus I find no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is therefore dismissed in limine. October 27, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia ) monika Judge