LPA No. 1812 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.1812 of 2010 Date of decision 6 .4.2011 Mohinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG Hy. for respondents 1 and 2 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 13.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant had been working as a daily wage labourer in the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala at D.C. rate which was to be paid out of contingencies. He was engaged on 29.11.1975 and his services were finally terminated vide order dated 29.10.1991 w.e.f. 1.11.1991. He has claimed that since he was appointed against a vacant post he becomes entitled to certain benefits and he should be treated as permanent. 2. We have summoned the record which shows that services of the appellant were terminated earlier also. The work and conduct of the official, as per record, had not been good. He was relieved from service on 18.4.1983 and after accepting his apology he was re-appointed on 26.4.1983. Likewise, his services were again terminated vide order dated LPA No. 1812 of 2010 2 6.3.1986 and he was re-appointed on 30.4.1986 after he tendered apology. Similar is the position when he was relieved in 1991 and his services were terminated vide order dated 29.10.1991 w.e.f. 1.11.1991. 3. Having perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no ground is made out to differ with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. The work and conduct of the appellant had been unsatisfactory and a work charged employee cannot expect any favourable order if his work and conduct remains unsatisfactory. In such like cases, a regular departmental enquiry is not called for because the appellant has no right to hold the post. There is thus no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. The summoned record be returned back to the learned State counsel. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 6. 4.2011 Judge okg