Regular Second Appeal No.1552 of 2010 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 24, 2010 State of Punjab & others ...Appellants VERSUS Surjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the appellants. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The State has filed this appeal being aggrieved against the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Surjit Singh was appointed as Chowkidar in Government Women College, Patiala on 22.11.1996. Plea is that he was so appointed on a regular post due to the vacancy caused by Kesar Singh Chowkidar, who was adjusted Regular Second Appeal No.1552 of 2010 (O&M) : 2 : as Peon. Subsequently, the appellants did not allow the respondent- plaintiff to assume duty after 7.7.1997. Subsequently, however, he was taken on duty from 28.10.1997 to 12.7.2000, but he was not allowed to continue thereafter. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed a suit for permanent injunction praying for permission to join duties. The suit was filed in July, 1997 but was withdrawn when a statement was made on 14.12.2004 that the appellant would be allowed to join duties. When the respondent-plaintiff was not allowed to join duties, he filed this suit. In response to notice, the appellants appeared and filed a written statement pointing out that respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Cycle Chowkidar and was paid consolidated salary of Rs.1236/- per month out of the students fund. He was appointed for 89 days. He, however, was assigned the job of Chowkidar in place of Kesar Singh on purely temporary basis as an internal arrangement on 20.3.1997. His services were terminated without any notice and accordingly he was relieved on 3.7.1997. Kesar Singh had joined back on the post of Chowkidar. The suit had accordingly been filed. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed, which was allowed on 20.3.1997. Against this, the appellants went in revision, which was allowed on 17.5.2000 and the order passed by the Lower Court was set-aside. Services of the appellant were accordingly dispensed with. This would explain the reason for which respondent-plaintiff was allowed to join duties between 28.10.1997 to 12.7.2000. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:- Regular Second Appeal No.1552 of 2010 (O&M) : 3 : “i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD iv) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD v) Relief. The suit was dismissed against which respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal. The first Appellate Court reversed the findings given by the trial Court and directed that the respondent-plaintiff be reinstated into service with continuity. His plea for back wages, however, was declined on the principle of “no work no pay”. Liberty was given to the appellants to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent-plaintiff within three months from the date of the order. The State accordingly has come up with limited grievance to urge that the direction to reinstate the respondent-plaintiff cannot be justified in view of the law laid down by this court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy, 1996 (3) RSJ 82. Once in an earlier suit filed, the action of the appellants to dispense with the service of the respondent-plaintiff was held justified, the same cannot be ignored. The reason for which the first Appellate Court has interfered is on account of violation of principle of natural justice. There may be a justification to direct the appellants to pass fresh order after following the principles of natural justice, but whether there would be a need to reinstate the respondent-plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.1552 of 2010 (O&M) : 4 : into service pending passing of the fresh order. The directions to this effect may not be in tune with the law laid down in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B.Karunakara and others, 1993(4) SCC 727 and Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra). The question of law as to whether there is a legal justification in directing the reinstatement of the respondent-plaintiff pending fresh consideration would, thus, arise in this case. The Regular Second Appeal to this extent deserves to be allowed and it is so ordered. The appellants would be at liberty to pass a fresh order after following principle of natural justice without reinstating the respondent-plaintiff. The directions to reinstate the respondent-plaintiff as issued by the Appellate Court are set-aside. Fresh decree sheet be accordingly prepared. Let the action be completed within a period of three months from the date copy of the order is received by the Corporation. May 24, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE