R.S.A.No. 1102 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1102 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 22.2.2011 Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ......Appellants Versus Rameshwar Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had joined the office of defendant on 15.2.1980 on daily wage basis. The plaintiff was entitled for regularization of his services in terms of letter dated 7.3.1995 issued by the Government of Haryana. In CWP No. 10923 of 2002 titled Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, the part time workers were ordered to be regularized in service. Defendants, in their written statement, denied that the R.S.A.No. 1102 of 2010(O&M) 2 plaintiff was serving on daily wage basis since the year 1980. It was averred that the plaintiff was not entitled for the benefit of letter dated 7.3.1995. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his service and is entitled to be treated in continuous service with consequential benefits of service as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of pay along with interest as claimed ? OPP OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court, if so, to its effect ? OPD 8. Relief.” The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2009 and directed the defendants to appoint the plaintiff on the post of Mali/peon subject to availability of vacancy and eligibility criteria, if fulfilled by the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Additional district Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009. Hence, the R.S.A.No. 1102 of 2010(O&M) 3 present appeal filed by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had been performing his duties as a daily wager from 15.10.1980 to 24.4.1985 and thereafter, on part time basis. The policy was framed by the State Government for regularization of the daily wage employees. In these circumstances, the Courts below passed a direction that in case there was a vacancy available then the plaintiff be appointed as a Mali cum peon on regular basis with a further rider that the plaintiff should fulfil the eligibility criteria qua the said post. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 anita