IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 2005 Date of Order: 08.09.2008 State of Haryana and Others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Shakuntala ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Karan Bharadwaj, Advocate for Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana, challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dated 01.10.2003 and the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated 25.09.2004, decreeing the suit of the respondent and dismissing their appeal The respondent filed a suit for declaration that she was entitled to be regularised as per the policy of regularisation framed by the State of Haryana on 07.03.1993 as modified on 18.03.1993 as she has put in 18 years of adhoc service as a daily wager. Despite the appellant's protestations to the contrary that the respondent was a seasonal worker, the trial Court found as a matter of fact that the respondent was working as a daily wager for the last 18 years. The appellants were, therefore, directed to consider her prayer for regularisation in accordance with the policy framed by the Government. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings returned by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 2005 -2- Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent is a seasonal worker and, therefore is not entitled to be considered for regularisation as seasonal workers have no right to regularisation. It is further submitted that even a daily wager or an adhoc employee can only be regularised in accordance with the policy framed by the State. The Courts below, erred while holding that the respondent is a daily wager as the respondent failed to adduce any evidence in support thereof. On account of the failure of the appellants to produce the muster roll, the Courts below wrongly drew an inference that the respondent was a daily wager. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that findings of fact, returned by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court, as to the status of the respondent as a daily wager, do not suffer from any error as would require interference in second appeal. The appellants failed to produce any evidence in support of their assertion that the respondent is a seasonal worker. The muster-roll was intentionally withheld from the courts below and, therefore, as the impugned judgments and decrees are legal and valid,therefore, their appeal be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have returned concurrent findings of fact as to the status of the respondent's employment. They have held that she has worked with the appellants, as a daily wager, for 18 years. The arguments advanced by counsel for the State of Haryana that the respondent is a seasonal worker, ia not supported by any evidence. The musteroll that could have shed some light upon this aspect was withheld from the trial Court. An extract from the musteroll was produced as Ex.D1. Even this was found to be fake, manipulated, incomplete and contrary to the oral deposition of the departmental witness. Regular Second Appeal No. 62 of 2005 -3- The oral assertion of the witness produced by the appellants was rightly rejected by the courts below. It is not denied that as per policy framed by the State of Haryana, a daily wager is entitled to be considered for regularisation, subject to his or her fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the policy of regularisation. The trial Court has merely directed the appellants to consider the respondent's claim for regularisation, in accordance with the policy framed by the State of Haryana on 07.03.1993 and modified on 18.03.1996. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 8, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE