Regular Second Appeal No. 1532 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1532 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.3.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. Appellants VS. Nand Lal Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below, the defendants have preferred the instant appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and have laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby they have been directed to regularize the services of the plaintiff from the date on which he completed 240 days of continuous service along with consequential benefits and interest thereupon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book carefully. It is apparent from the records that the relief of regularization of service on completion of 240 days of service, to which the plaintiff- respondent was found entitled concurrently by the Courts below, was admittedly given by the appellant-Department to similarly situated employees pursuant to the directions given by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, but not to the plaintiff. Thus, it has been held that it was the duty of the Department to extend the same relief to the other employees, covered under the directions of the Court and not wait for the directions of Regular Second Appeal No. 1532 of 2008 2 the Courts in each and every case. The contention that there are no rules/ instructions warranting regularization of the employee on completion of 240 days of service in each case, is of no avail as the same issue is no more res integra and has been settled in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others CWP No.1437 of 1988, decided on 13.7.2005, followed recently by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Devender Kumar, RSA No.1516 of 2008, decided on 15.1.2009, which has not been controverted by the learned State counsel. In view of this there is no room to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 24,2009 Jiten