RSA No.3279 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3279 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9 - 8 - 2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants v. Chander Bhan ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana, defendant to the suit. Chander Bhan respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that his services be regularised by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot, Sirsa w.e.f. 1.10.2003. It is not disputed that respondent-plaintiff was employed as a Helper in Sub Depot of Haryana Roadways, Dabwali. He joined the service on 7.12.1993 as a Helper on daily wages. Taking long service of the respondent-plaintiff into consideration, his services were regularised on 5.5.2004. The only question which two Courts below have deliberated is from which date services of the respondent-plaintiff were to be regularised. RSA No.3279 of 2011 (O&M) [2] Both the Courts below have held that services are to be regularised from the date when the employee respondent-plaintiff completed 240 days of service. Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the appellant-State has not been able to distinguish the judgments rendered by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No.1437 of 1988 and Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RSJ 38 (P&H) which were relied upon by both the Courts below to grant relief to the respondent-plaintiff. Two Courts below further held that case of the respondent-plaintiffs is squarely covered in view of the decision rendered in R.S.A.No.3804 of 2006, titled as, `State of Haryana and others v. Mani Ram', decided on 10.11.2009. Ms.Peshawaria has stated that number of employees who were similarly situated were granted the similar relief, as the respondent-plaintiff has been granted. Therefore, she has stated that she would not be in a position to urge before this Court that a different yardstick should have been deployed to decide the case of the respondent-plaintiff. In view of the concurrent findings of fact returned by two Courts below, no question of law much less the substantial one has been formulated before me which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. Since the Regular Second Appeal itself has been decided, no orders are called for on the application seeking condonation of delay. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 9, 2011. JUDGE RC