IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2982 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.11.2011 Hari Kishan ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- None *** RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) C.M. Nos. 8219 and 8221-C of 2011 Plaintiff has filed suit for seeking declaration to the effect that order dated 01.12.1998 terminating the service of the plaintiff from the post of Peon (work charge) was illegal, null and void. Plaintiff also sought a relief to continue on the post of Peon. He was appointed as a Peon (work charge) under defendant/respondent No. 2 on 27.05.1991. Plaintiff has completed more than 8 years continuous service. After 8 years of cotinuous service, he was going to be confirmed on the post. However, his services were terminated without following the principles of natural justice. On notice, defendants filed written statement wherein they took certain preliminary objections to the effect that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainabile that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. It was admitted that plaintiff was working as Peon-cum-Labourer on daily wages w.e.f 04.06.1991 and not w.e.f 27.05.1991. It was further submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff was served with letter dated 16.11.1998 regarding his absence from duty but plaintiff has neither submitted any reply to the explanation nor he has submitted any medical certificate. On 06.02.1991, the trial Court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPD (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD (iii)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (iv) Whether suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous as alleged in para 3 of preliminary objections? OOPD (v) Relief The trial Court, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar Vihyarthi & others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1997(2) Apex Court Journal 445 has given a finding on all the issues agaisnt the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed, vide order dated 17.01.2000 On appeal, the findings of the trial Court has been affirmed. There is a delay of 455 days in filing the present appeal and 2252 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, no ground is made out to condone the delay in 455 days and 2252 days in re-filing the present appeal. Accordingly C.M. Is dismissed. R.S.A No. 2982 of 2011 (O&M) Resultantly, R.S.A is dismissed. November 21, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE