IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3177 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Bhim Singh son of Shri Indraj, Salesman, Sirsa Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, Sirsa. ...Petitioner versus The State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigargh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. None for respondents 2 to 4. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. It appears that a challenge to a termination of an employee, who was the regularized in a Cooperative Society, was made on the ground that there had been malafides in such decision. The Court that admitted the writ petition, also granted stay of the order of termination on 22.04.1988. The counsel for the petitioner states that he has continued in service. I would not find it necessary Civil Writ Petition No.3177 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - to undertake an exercise of whether the termination could be made at this time, having regard to the very special circumstances that the order of termination came to be stayed by this Court and the petitioner has continued in his employment and earned promotions over a period of his service. I do not, therefore, examine the case afresh and taking note of the subsequent event, I find that the impugned order of termination shall not be given effect. 2. This order casts no aspersion on any of the respondents nor shall it be assumed that the petitioner's allegations have been found to be true. This order is passed on grounds of expediency than how it should have been other than normally done. Orders of stay of termination are not regular feature at all and if there has been such an order under an extraordinary circumstance and that it has been allowed to stay on for more than two decades, it would be inequitable to take any decision that might jeopardize the petitioner's continuance in service, if there has been otherwise no objection about the petitioner's conduct. This decision shall not be used as a precedent in any case. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 23.11.2011 sanjeev