R.S.A. No. 3371 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3371 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.6.2010 ... The State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa, District Sirsa and others ................Appellants vs. Som Parkash .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Lekh Raj Nandal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Sh. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is an appeal directed by State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa, the Transport Commissioner, Haryana and General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot, Sirsa, against the judgment dated 21.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment dated 29.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, was partly accepted. Som Parkash – plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction consequential relief of mandatory injunction. He joined the department on 5.9.1984 on daily wages basis. Vide order dated 5.5.2004, w.e.f. 1.10.2003 his services has been R.S.A. No. 3371 of 2009 (O&M) -2- regularised by defendant No.3 i.e. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot, which is liable to be modified to the extent that his services should be regularised from the date when he has completed 240 days of regular service. The services of Dharam Singh, Raj Kumar, Om Parkash and Sucha Singh have been regularised by defendant No.3 after the completion of 240 days of the service. Defendants cannot distinguish between the similarly situated employees. Hence the suit. On put to notice, defendants appeared and resisted the suit. It is admitted that plaintiff was appointed as Helper on daily wages basis on 5.9.1984, but it is pleaded that his services were rightly regularised as per instructions of the Government w.e.f. 1.10.2003. The services of Dharam Singh, Raj Kumar, Om Parkash and Sucha Singh have been regularised in compliance of orders of the High Court. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. R.S.A. No. 3371 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and also examined Rajender Kumar, Clerk as PW-2. The defendants examined Rajender Kumar, Clerk as DW-1. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence on the file, returned the finding on all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said finding, the defendants preferred the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal to the extent that plaintiff is entitled to the arrears for a period of 38 months prior to the filing of the suit but the remaining part of the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with both the abovesaid judgments, the present appeal has been preferred. The controversy raised in the present appeal has already been decided by this Court in RSA No. 3804 of 2006 on 10.11.2009. The appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed in that case. It has been held in the concluding para that no question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, requiring interference by this Court and the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be set aside. So, in view of the above circumstances, the present appeal is also without any substance and consequently, the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 30.6.2010 Judge chugh R.S.A. No. 3371 of 2009 (O&M) -4-