RSA No.1249 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1249 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 12, 2012 Kharaiti Lal .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.SP Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that his services be regularized on the post of Helper w.e.f. 1.10.2003 with all consequential benefits. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed as Helper on 3.1.1994 and was posted in Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot. The State Government vide notification dated 1.10.2003 had issued a policy regarding the regularization of the services of daily wages/adhoc basis/contract employees (Group 'C' and 'D') and in pursuance thereto, his services were, in fact, regularized on the post of Helper in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 vide order dated 1.4.2004. It was pleaded that such regularization was w.e.f. 1.10.2003. However, by a subsequent order dated 30.8.2004, the earlier order dated 1.4.2004 was modified to the extent that his services now stood regularized w.e.f. 1.6.2004 instead of 1.10.2003. It was towards impugning such action of the defendants that the suit seeking a decree for declaration was instituted. RSA No.1249 of 2011 2 3. The defendants filed a reply stating that the plaintiff was engaged as a Helper on daily wage basis and had not been appointed against any sanctioned post and not on a graded pay scale. His appointment was a stop-gap arrangement as per requirement of work. The services of the plaintiff could not be regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003 as no sanctioned vacant post of Helper was available on that date. 4. The trial Court after having heard the parties, upon appreciation of evidence and having referred to the policy regarding the regularization of services of adhoc/daily wage employees dismissed the suit. The plaintiff- appellant preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. 6. Exhibit P2 is the copy of notification dated 1.10.2003 issued by the State Government laying down the policy of regularization of the services of adhoc/daily wages/contract/part-time workers wherein it has been provided that the regularization of such employees on their respective posts would take effect provided they fulfilled the requisite qualifications and were originally appointed against vacant posts. Exhibit D6 is the copy of order, dated 30.8.2004, which would reveal that the services of the plaintiff-appellant were ordered to be regularized as Helper w.e.f. 1.6.2004 instead of 1.10.2003 due to non-availability of such vacant post in the regular pay scale. 7. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that no evidence had been led by the plaintiff-appellant on the file to demonstrate as to whether any vacant post of Helper was existing or had accrued on 1.10.2003 or at any time before 1.6.2004. That apart, a subsequent notification dated RSA No.1249 of 2011 3 13.4.2007, Exhibit D5, has been noticed by the Courts below whereby the State Government had rescinded four notifications including the notification dated 1.10.2003, Exhibit P2, upon which the plaintiff-appellant is placing reliance to stake his claim for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2003. 8. I find no infirmity in the order, dated 30.8.2004, whereby the services of the plaintiff-appellant have been regularized on the post of Helper w.e.f. 1.6.2004 instead of 1.10.2003. The plaintiff-appellant had himself admitted in his cross-examination before the trial Court that he had not been originally appointed against a vacant post. The policy for regularization envisages that the benefit of regularization would flow only upon the initial appointment, be it on contract/daily wage/adhoc basis, being against an available vacant post. The findings of both the Courts below to the effect that no evidence has been brought on file to show that, in fact, a vacant post of Helper had existed/accrued on 1.10.2003 or at any time before 1.6.2004, would be cogent to deny the claim of the plaintiff- appellant. The conclusions are drawn on due appreciation of the evidence placed on record as also upon discussion of the State policy governing regularization of services. 9. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the present second appeal. 10. The present appeal is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 11. Appeal dismissed. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No