Regular Second Appeal No.3435 of 1985 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 The Punjab State & another ...Appellants VERSUS Shri Des Raj ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants. Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Punjab State has filed the present Regular Second Appeal to impugn the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as by the then Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar. Respondent-plaintiff Des Raj was initially appointed as a Sweeper by the Town Planner Circle, Jalandhar for a period of one Regular Second Appeal No.3435 of 1985 : 2 : month. This was against a leave vacancy. However, he was subsequently appointed as Chowkidar in a regular grade on adhoc basis through letter dated 7.1.1983. This appointment was for a period of 89 days. It is averred that thereafter his services were regularised on 7.4.1985 and, thus, he became a regular employee. Suddenly, however, the appellants served a notice dated 27.7.1983 to the respondent-plaintiff and terminated his services on 31.8.1983. This termination order was challenged on various grounds. The appellants filed a written statement pointing out that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed only on temporary basis for a period of one month and was required to be relieved being appointed against a leave vacancy. In the meantime, the regular vacancy of Chowkidar became available and on request made by the respondent-plaintiff, he was appointed as Chowkidar but on adhoc basis. The Controlling Officer, however, held that this appointment was made irregularly and in an illegal manner and accordingly the impugned order was passed simply easing respondent-plaintiff out of service. The appellants accordingly would plead that there is no cause of action to file this suit, which is otherwise also not maintainable. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether the order for termination of service is illegal, ultravires as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether there is no cause of action? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not justiciable? OPD 5. Relief. Regular Second Appeal No.3435 of 1985 : 3 : All the issues were decided in favour of the respondent- plaintiff by the trial Court. The State accordingly filed an appeal against the same. The first Appellate Court has also upheld the order of the trial Court. The State has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal. The only submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that respondent-plaintiff was not a regular employee and the whole basis of passing the order in this regard by the first Appellate Court would be against the facts averred on record. Reference can be made to the appointment letter Ex.P3 issued on 7.4.1983, which was construed to be an order regularising the services of the respondent-plaintiff. This letter clearly mentions that the appointment was temporary one. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court had no reason or material to hold that the services of the respondent-plaintiff were regular or were regularised. Respondent-plaintiff was a temporary employee and it was also noticed that his appointment was not made in accordance with law and, thus, was not legal. Finding the appointment to be illegal, an innocuous order relieving the respondent-plaintiff from service was made. The submission that respondent-plaintiff was a regular employee and to terminate his service, there was need of holding an enquiry after issuing charge sheet, thus, can not arise in this case. It is not a case of punishment. The impugned order relieving the respondent-plaintiff from service has been perused by me and it is non-stigmatic order and cannot be termed as punitive. For a temporary employee, there was no requirement to adopt any other procedure than that has Regular Second Appeal No.3435 of 1985 : 4 : been done in this case. It is also noticeable that the very appointment of the respondent-plaintiff was found to be illegal and as such action was taken to simply relieve the appellant. The motive for passing the order was that the appointment was illegal for which there was neither any need nor a requirement of holding an enquiry. The view taken by the trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court, thus, cannot be sustained. Substantial question of law in regard to the right of the appellants to pass a non-stigmatic order in terms of the conditions of appointment, thus, would arise. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments under appeal are set-aside. Fresh decree-sheet be prepared by the Registry of this court. May 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE