Regular Second Appeal No. 3143 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3143 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.5.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Bahadur Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. for the appellant. Mr. D.K. Jangra, Advocate For caveator. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The State of Haryana is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, which initially was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no question of law raised in this appeal which may warrant its admission in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emerges out from the records that there is no dispute to the factual aspect of the matter. The services of the plaintiff were terminated on 19.7.2000 for having remained absent from 1.9.1999 to 1.12.1999, but on an appeal, the termination order was set aside by the competent Authority on 21.5.2001 and it was ordered that suspension period be treated as leave of the kind due. Since the plaintiff was never placed under suspension, accordingly on an application moved by the plaintiff, the words "suspension period" were replaced by words "during Regular Second Appeal No. 3143 OF 2008 2 period which he remained out of service" with the further stipulation that he be not paid any dues for the period he remained out of service. However, with the passing of order dated 19.7.2000, the punishment imposed upon the plaintiff was set aside and it was ordered that the absence period w.e.f. 1.9.1999 to 1.12.1999 be treated as leave of the kind due. In such a situation, the Department cannot take a different stand by with-holding the benefits of the plaintiff for the said period. This rightly led the first appellate Court below to decree the suit of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned first appellate Court below is either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 27,2009 Jiten