R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2009 State of Haryana and others ......Appellants Versus Nanak Chand .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Shubhara Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Nanak Chand and others filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2007. In appeal, filed by plaintiff No.1, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.2009 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants-State. 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. In brief the facts leading to the institution of R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the case of the appellant/plaintiff, are that the appellant, Rai Sahab and Shiv Kumar, had joined their services on 26.09.1983, 1.01.1986 and 13.10.1983 respectively and their services were regularized on 1.04.1993 instead of after completing their 240 days of service. The respondent no. 3 has regularized the service of Dharam Singh, Raj Kumar and Om Parkash vide order dated 16.04.2001 after completing their 240 days of service and all benefits of service have already been given to them by the respondents. In this way there is no reason to deprive of the appellant from the same relief which has been give to aforesaid employees. The respondent no. 3 has also regularized the services of one Suchan Singh vide order dated 2.07.1990 when he completed his 240 days of services. Similarly service of Lachman Singh was also regularized vide order dated 25.07.1999 after completion of his 240 days of services. In this way it is crystal clear that the appellant also entitled for the regularization of his services after completion of his 240 days of services and also entitled for all the service benefits. The appellant approached the respondents several time and also served them with legal notice dated 10.12.2003, 2.04.2003 and 17.12.2003 but to no purpose and ultimately they have to file the present suit. R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) 3 3. Notice of the suit was given to the respondents. They filed their joint written statement controverting all the assertions of the appellant and raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; concealment of true and material facts; the suit of the appellant is false and frivolous. On merits, it is stated that the date of appointment Sai Sahab is 1.06.1986 and not 13.10.1983 and service of all the appellants have been regularized on 1.04.1993 as per instructions of the Govt. issued from time to time. The State Govt. has issued instructions and framed policies regarding regularizing services of the state employees. Guidelines have also been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and in those orders it was mentioned that blanket order of regularization of service on completion of 240 days, is not justifiable. Since no right of the appellant has been infringed, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. Service of Dharam Singh, Raj Kumar and Om Parkash, have been regularized on the direction of the Court and the case was not properly pleaded in the Court and this was the reason that benefit was given to them. In this way, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit a claimed by him and in the end the R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) 4 respondents prayed for dismissal of the present suit. “ On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- I. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for a decree of declaration as alleged?OPP II. Whether the plaintiffs are also entitled for consequential relief of mandatory injunction as alleged?OPP III. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD IV. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit in the present form?OPD V. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled for regularization of their services after they have completed 240 days of continuous and un-interrupted service. The case of the plaintiffs further was that they had been regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1993, whereas, their juniors, Dharam Singh, Raj kumar and Om Parkash, had been regularised after they had completed 240 days of service. Admittedly, services of Dharam Singh, Raj kumar and Om Parkash were regularised on 16.4.2001 when they had completed 240 days of service. Similarly services of Sucha Singh R.S.A.No. 4900 of 2009 (O&M) 5 and Lachhman Singh were regularised on 2.7.1990 and 25.7.1999 respectively after completion of 240 days of their services. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the cases of the plaintiffs were liable to be treated at parity with the cases of Dharam Singh, Raj kumar and Om Parkash. The plaintiffs had been discriminated. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 23, 2009 anita