In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1373 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:8.11.2011 Kartar Singh .....Appellant v. Haryana State and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.9888 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1987 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari has been dismissed. Plaintiff-appellant Kartar Singh was appointed as a work- charged employee in the Irrigation Branch of PWD on 1.4.1980. It was stipulated in the appointment letter that his services were likely to be terminated without notice. Consequent upon the winding up of the project R.S.A. No.1373 of 1988 [2] and gross-reduction in the work load, a decision (Ex.P.2) was taken to terminate the services of various members of the staff including the plaintiff w.e.f. 17.2.1986 after service of ten days notice, as required in paragraph 1.129 (7) of P.W.D. Code. Accordingly, notice dated 7.2.1986 (Ex.P.1) was served on the plaintiff and his services were terminated w.e.f. 17.2.1986. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and consequential relief challenging the termination order as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and equity and in violation of the service rules. The termination order dated 7.2.1986 has been challenged by the plaintiff on the grounds that he has completed more than 240 days in service without any break, therefore, he is deemed to be a regular employee and is entitled to protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. After notice the suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was appointed on 1.4.1980 on purely temporary and work-charged basis vide appointment letter dated 25.3.1985 and according to the terms and conditions of the appointment, his services have rightly been terminated vide letter dated 7.2.1986 w.e.f. 17.2.1986. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court after appreciating the evidence and material placed on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff (appellant herein) has come up before this Court through regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the trial Court record with the assistance of counsels. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.3.1988 has allowed the R.S.A. No.1373 of 1988 [3] Special Leave Petition and the writ petition filed by similarly situated employees and the State Government was directed to appoint the appellants and petitioners within two months. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, very fairly conceded that the question involved in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (Civil Appeal No.61 of 1987) with SLP (C) No.1511-B of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No.307 of 1987, decided on 17.3.1988. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of in the same terms as in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra). The appellant will be entitled to get the same benefits as have been given to the similarly situated employees as per the above decision of the Supreme Court. November 8, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*