IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1669 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 09, 2011 Raj Kumar .....APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The workman has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.9594 of 2009, whereby his writ petition was partly allowed and his alternative prayer for granting compensation was accepted, which was assessed at ` 60,000/- and ordered to be paid to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In this appeal, the appellant is praying that instead of granting him the compensation for his illegal termination, he should have been reinstated. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Undisputedly, the appellant was appointed by the respondents as Mali-cum- Chowkidar on part time basis. His appointment was de hors the statutory L.P.A. No.1669 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Rules. Though it is a fact that the appellant had worked on part time basis w.e.f. 16.6.1997 to 31.3.2002. However, the learned Single Judge while taking into consideration all the facts, including the aforesaid facts, has ordered for compensation to the appellant because he could not have been reinstated in view of his appointment de hors the statutory Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation amount of ` 60,000/- assessed by the learned Single Judge is inadequate, cannot be accepted. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly assessed the aforesaid amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant and the same does not require any interference. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 09, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE