R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.10.2009 Bijender Singh ......Appellant Versus Secy.to Govt. Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Bijender Singh filed a suit for declaration; permanent and mandatory injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2006. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 2 plaintiff's case, as alleged, are that the plaintiff was appointed as Patwari on work charged basis on 21.10.86 in the office of Xen, PWD (B&R), Faridabad and he worked there upto 31.12.1989 and later on, his services were terminated. The plaintiff was re-appointed on 1.1.92 as Baildar on temporary muster rolls in the office of Xen, PWD (B&R), Faridabad and he was assigned duty in Sub Division No.II and provisional Sub Division, Ballabgarh, where he worked upt 1994 and then he was deputed in the office of Xen, Sub Division No.II, PWD (B&R) and worked at Faridabad and Palwal upto March, 1996 on monthly basis. The plaintiff was transferred in the office of Resident Engineer, ADB PWD (B&R), Palwal and since then he was working in the same division. The plaintiff is working regularly as there is no break in the service from 1.2.92 and worked with the defendants at various placed. During his service, the plaintiff was not served with any warning, charge sheet or show cause notice. The Chief Secretary, Haryana Government had issued instructions to all the heads of the department to regularize the services of daily wages, who had completed five years of service on 31.3.1993 and same instructions were again issued on 7.2.1996 for those employees, who had completed three years on 31.1.1996. The plaintiff asked R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 3 the defendants many times to regularize his service but his service has not been regularized so far. Hence, the present suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff and against the defendants. 3. This suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has worked w.e.f. October 1986 to July, 1988 but he did not work from 1/87 to 6/87 and after 28 months, he again joined his duty and worked for 7 months and worked for only 17 days in October, 1992 and 9 days in November, 1992. The plaintiff has also worked in June, 1993 to August, 1993 only for 3 months and worked in the month of October, 1993 to December, 1993 on the basis of daily wages temporary muster roll as Baildar. He has again worked from March, 1995 to March 1996 only for 301 days as Patwari on monthly basis. The plaintiff did not work continuously for one year in any of the office and he is not entitled for regularization of his service as per Haryana Government Policy. The plaintiff had not completed 5 years in service continuously nor he has completed 240 days in each year. There was a break in his service and thus, his services are not likely to be regularized. Hence, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 4 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the regularization of his services w.e.f. 7.3.1996 as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from terminating the services of the plaintiff as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disburse the resultant benefits of regularization of his services as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is false, vague, frivolous as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the civil suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the Hon'ble Court Palwal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the civil suit as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of R.S.A.No. 3291 of 2008 5 the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction and then sought relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disburse the resultant benefits of regularization of his services w.e.f. 7.3.1996. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had continuously worked as a Baildar from the year 1986 to 1996. Learned Additional District judge has observed that from the record placed on the file, it was evident that the plaintiff had never worked for a period of 240 days in each year for three years or five years to get the benefit under the instructions Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 for regularization of his services. The plaintiff had not remained in service for months and years together. He was re-appointed after the months together. The finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2009 anita