R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 26, 2009 State of Haryana and others ---Appellants versus Mahabir Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Mahabir Singh had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “ That initially, Mahabir Singh, plaintiff (respondent herein) has filed a suit for obtaining the decree of declaration with permanent injunction on the ground that he is entitled for R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) {2} regularization of his services on his previous post w.e.f. 1.2.1`996 along with other benefits. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed by the defendants on 27.6.1991 as Beldar whose services were terminated verbally on 28.5.1992 without assigning any reason. Then the plaintiff filed his case in the Labour Court which was awarded in favour of the the plaintiff on 1.5.1997 with the directions that Workman/plaintiff is entitled to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service with 50% back wages. Then the plaintiff rejoined his duty on 3.5.2000 and since then he is doing his duties quite satisfactorily. The plaintiff came to know that services of same junior persons namely Jai Parkash and Shiv Kumar have been regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996 by the defendants. Haryana Govt. has issued the instructions regarding regularization of services of their employees who are working on the basis of daily wages/ad hoc/casual employees and according to these instructions those said employees who have completed three years of their service on or before 31.1.1996. The case of the plaintiff squarely covered by these instructions. Moreover, the services of some junior persons have also been regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996. the plaintiff fulfills all the requisite conditions for regularization. The plaintiff requested the defendants many times regarding regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.2.1996, but the defendants want to terminate the services of the plaintiff in spite of regularizing his services and this threatened act of the defendants is absolutely illegal, unwarranted, R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) {3} unconstitutional, malafide, arbitrary, against the provisions of law and also against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the present suit. 3. On presentation of the suit, notice was issued to the defendants who resisted the suit in terms of their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, non- serving of notice under Section 80 CPC, the suit is bad for non- joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the allegations alleged by the plaintiff were denied and it was contended that in fact the plaintiff was engaged as Beldar w.e.f. 27.6.1991 on daily wages and he was re-engaged 3.5.2000 whereas the service of the Shiv Kumar and Jai Parkash were regularized on 26.2.2001 and 19.7.2002. the plaintiff did not fulfill the requisite conditions for regularization of his services as the plaintiff had worked only from 27.6.1991 to 28.5.1992 and he does not cover the requisite conditions for regularization of his services. The plaintiff never approached for the same to the defendants and so dismissal of the suit was prayed for.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his service on his previous post w.e.f. 1.2.1996 along with other resultant benefits? OPP (2)If issued No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for on the grounds as alleged? OPP R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) {4} (3)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (4)Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (5)Relief After hearing learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff-Mahabir Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that he was entitled for regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.2.1996. 1. Admittedly, the plaintiff was working as a Beldar on daily wage basis with the appellants w.e.f. 27.6.1991. Services of the plaintiff were terminated on 28.5.1992. Plaintiff challenged his termination by seeking a reference to the Labour Court. Vide award dated 1.5.1997 (Ex. P-1) reference was accepted and the plaintiff was reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages. In terms of the said award, plaintiff joined his duty on 3.5.2000. Although the case of the appellants is that the plaintiff had been re-engaged by them but as per the award passed by the Labour Court, plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages. In these circumstances, courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is deemed to be in continuous service w.e.f. 27.6.1991. The case of the plaintiff further is that his juniors who had completed three years of service were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996 in terms of the Government instructions (Ex. P-2 and P-3). In these circumstances, plaintiff is also entitled for regularization of his service in terms of Government instructions. Both the courts below have, thus rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 3126 of 2009 (O&M) {5} No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 26, 2009 PARAMJIT