IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 171 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.7.2009 Surinder Pal Singh ......Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Palika Moga, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition for regularization in service. 2. The appellant was appointed as Ticket Verifier in the Haryana Roadways on 1.7.1994. He remained absent from 15.8.2001 to 17.4.2003. He applied for regularization in terms of Policy of the Haryana Government dated 1.10.2003. The said relief was declined vide order dated 4.10.2004, inter alia, on the ground that he remained absent for 611 days. 3. The appellant challenged the order dated 4.10.2004 and also challenged order dated 8.1.2007, which was passed during the pendency of the writ petition, discontinuing the services of the appellant. 4. Contention of the appellant was that vide order dated 29.12.2003, his absence was regularized. 5. Learned Single Judge held that in view of long absence without any explanation, decision of not regularizing him in service was valid and so was the order dated 8.1.2007 discontinuing his service. There were 11 posts L.P.A.No. 171 of 2008 [2] of ticket verifier which were filled and, thus, the appellant could not be appointed on regular basis when there was no post available. 6. Main contention raised in this appeal is that in view of the order of the General Manager dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-7) in favour of the appellant and juniors having been retained, the services of the appellant could not have been discontinued. 7. Learned counsel for the State has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Transport Commissioner declaring the order of General Manager dated 29.12.2003 for regularizing appellant's 611 days absence, as being erroneous and unauthorized and also giving a show cause notice to the appellant as to why his services be not terminated which was followed by order dated 8.1.2007, passed after giving personal hearing directing discontinuing of services of the appellant. 8. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as daily wager and it has not been disputed that there was absence of 611 days without any justification. In the circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order refusing to regularise the services of the appellant and has upheld the order of termination of his service, no interference is called for. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 16, 2009 JUDGE raghav L.P.A.No. 171 of 2008 [3] Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No