Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 1985 Date of decision: 18.01.2010 Attar Chand ...appellant Versus The Punjab University and another ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the respondent-University. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. These 3 Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA Nos. 3281 of 1984, 1246 and 2494 of 1985 can be disposed of by this common orders as identical relief on the basis of facts, which are common in all the 3 cases are involved. The appellants had joined the service of Punjab University in the year 1945, 1946 at Lahore. They claimed themselves to be permanent confirmed employees of the University. In the year 1969, School Education Board Haryana was formed and the services of the appellants were provisionally allocated to the Board of School Education Haryana. The appellants would further claim that their services were allocated as an expert with a specific understanding that the service conditions would remain the same and the service would be deemed to be continuous in the existing Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 1985 2 capacity. It is also averred that the defendant-University assured that the interest of the appellants would be safeguarded and they would be governed by the same service condition, which are applicable to the employees of Panjab University. Contesting that they were provisionally allocated to the Board, the appellant filed a suit seeking declaration to this effect that they continued to be the permanent employee of the Panjab University and also prayed for mandatory injunction, commanding the University to continue to treat them as their permanent employee and to continue to grant the existing facilities and benefits that the appellants would have earned because of their employment, which was extended by the Panjab University and was being enjoyed till date. The suit was contested by the University-defendant. It was made out that the suit was filed only to avoid ejectment proceedings, which were pending against the appellants for getting them evicted from the quarters allocated to them while being employees with the Panjab University. It is also averred that the appellants had been finally allocated to the Board because the conduct of Matriculation and Higher Secondary examination, which were earlier with the University were transferred to various Boards constituted for the said purposes. It is also stated that the entire service record as well as provident fund of the appellants were finally transferred to defendant-Board after allocation of the appellants and even their liens had not been retained. The Board in the written statement would point out that the appellants stood promoted as Superintendent and Assistant Secretary by the Board and had received various increments from the defendant-Board. Their Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 1985 3 confidential reports were also written by the office of Board. The appellants were allowed to retain quarters and thereafter from year to year payment of rent on the request of the defendant-Board. On this ground, they could never be considered the employee of the University after allocation to this Board. On the basis of this pleading of the reply so filed, the following issues were struck: 1. Whether the plaintiff is provisionally allocated by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2? If so, its effect?OPP. 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 has altered and vary the service conditions of the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP. 3. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the discretionary relief of declaration and injunction?OPP 6. Whether the suit is mala fide, as alleged in preliminary objection No. 3?OPP. 7. Relief. The trial Court held that issue of allocation of the appellants to the defendant-Board was final and it had the effect of severing relationship between the appellants and the defendant- University. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the appellants. The issue of jurisdiction was, however, decided in favour of the appellants. Issues No. 4, 5 and 6 were also decided against the appellants. Ultimately the suit filed by the appellants were dismissed. Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 1985 4 They remained unsuccessful in appeal. When the cases were taken up for hearing, no one appears to represent the appellants. Mr. Sibal, counsel appearing for the University, however, would point out that the appellants have since retired from the services rendered by them in the Board. Their provident fund was also transferred to the Board. They have already received the retiral benefits from the Board and thus for all intent and purposes they have been treated as employees of the Board. There is no substantial question of law, which according to the respondent would arise in this case. Counsel for the respondent would also show that the appellants have already retired and have taken the retiral benefits from the Board. They may not be very keen now to pursue their present Regular Second Appeal. None has appeared to represent them. I otherwise also do not find any merit in the cases. There is no substantial question of law, which has been formulated by the appellants, which would require consideration. The Regular Second Appeals are accordingly dismissed. January 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE