65 1r ele Reqular Second Appeal Noe 3541 of 2010 O8Mla IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decisionl March f1 1 20110 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 3541 of 2010 OSMI 1 l Mahesh Kumar Appellant 0 C0 I VERSUS C5 I State of Haryana and others Respondents Z 2 CORAM HONBLE MRJSTICE MOHINDER PAL I 1 Whether Reportersof Locai papers may be allowed to see L0 the judgment7 Z 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3a Whether the judgmentshould be reportedIn the Digest7 00 7 Presentl MrRohit Ahuja Advocate Z for the appeilant MOHINDER PAL J This is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for declaration and consequentialreiief of mandatoryinjunctionhas been dismissed by both the Courts below I have heard Mr Rohit Ahuja Advocate appearingfor the plaintifappellantand have perusedthe impugnedjudgments PlaintiffappellantMahesh Kumar was appointed as a Cook against contingencyat DC rate on temporarybasis with KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 31 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 4n 2 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 3541 of 2010 lO8MI effect from 781988 in the Haryana Police but he did not performhis dutyregularly At the relevant time he was working as a Cook with the Superintendentof Police Mini Secretariat Sector 12 Faridabad defendantrespondent No On 191997 he was involved in a criminal case under the 1 Excise Act for keepingin his possessionillicit liquor He remained 0 Ill custodyfor three days and thereafter released on bail by the 0 I trial Magistrate Ultimateiyhe was acquitted in this crim inal case C5 by the Courtof competentjurisdiction after giving the plaintie I appellantthe benefit of doubt After his acquittalin the criminal Z case the plaintiffappellantserved notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendantsespondents for I reinstatinghim in service When no action was taken on the said L2 Iegalnotice of the plaintiff by the defendants the instant suit was Z filed by the plaintiff CQ The plaintiffhad claimed that his appointment was on 7 Z regular basis However he could not produceon record any L1 appointmentIetter The plaintiffeven failed to prove on record that he was appointedon temporarybasis No official record was summoned by the plaintifappellant from the Department The plaintiffinorder to prove his eligibilityfor regularizationin service was requiredto prove that he was appointedon a post and had put in particular number of daysin service during a year No suspension allowance was claimed by the plaintifffrom the departmentIn fact he did not perform any duty after 1951997 when criminal case under the Excise Act had been registered KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 31 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 1 8 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 3541 of 2010 08M1 lJ against him In his crossexamination piaintifopeilant Mahesh Kumar PW 1 admitted that he did not work after 195 1997 He also admitted that he had been employed on dailywages at DC Rate The instant suit was filed by the piaintiff on 212006 ie after more than nine years when he chose notto 1 l approach the Department for any relief The suit was thus 0 hopelesslybarred by Iimitation ThUS no fault can be found 0 I with the findingsrecorded by both the Courts below Ieadingto the C5 dismissal of the suit filed by the I Under the circumstances I do not find any patent Z illegalityor irregularityin the findingsrecorded by the Courts below which may give rise to any substantial questionof Iaw in the present I appeal Resultantly this appeal IS herebydismissed being without any merit Z m 6 1 1 PALI 7 20110 JUDGE 1 Z ak tl 18 Ot KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 31 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document