R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2009 Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry Project), Rohtak ......Appellant Versus Bhani Devi .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Shubra Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.),Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2009. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 . Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief facts of the case as averred in the R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) 2 plaint are that respondent-plaintiff was serving with defendants since 10.9.1990 as a daily wager and her work and conduct has always remained satisfactory. Her services were terminated on 1.8.1996 verbally without assigning any reason and against this act she has filed the case in the Labour Court, in which, the award was passed in her favour on 5.10.2001 with the direction that she was entitled to reinstatement on her previous post with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand of notice i.e.10.3.1997. After joining her duty she came to know that the Haryana Government has issued instructions for regularization of services of daily wages/adhoc/casual workers, who have completed three years of services on or before 31.1.1996 and their services were to be regularized from 1.2.1996. It was averred that her case was covered under the above said instructions as she fulfils all the conditions for regularization of services but the defendants are not accepting her request. Thereafter, legal notice dated 17.2.2003 was also issued, but to no effect. Hence, the present suit. 3. In the joint written statement filed by the defendants, they have taken preliminary objections with regard to non-maintainability of the present suit; plaintiff R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) 3 having no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit; suit being bad for want of service of legal notice, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit being not properly valued for the purposes of court fees. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was employed as a Labourer on daily wages but it was denied that her work and conduct was satisfactory. It was further denied that her services were terminated on 1.8.1996. It was averred that she herself left the services. It was further admitted that award was passed by Labout Court on 5.10.2001, against which writ petition preferred by them which was dismissed on 16.10.2001 and now SLP was pending regarding the same in Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further admitted that the instructions were issued for regularization of services of daily wages etc. but as the plaintiff does not fulfill the requisite conditions because she was not in service on 31.1.1996 and she has not completed 240 days in any Calendar year and the gap is of more than 30 days in each year, therefore, she was not entitled for regularization. Rests of the averments in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. “ On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) 4 (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for regularization of her services w.e.f. 1.2.1996 along with other resultant benefits?OPP (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of notice U/s 80 CPC?OPP (5) Whether the suit has not been properly verified?OPD (6) Whether case of the plaintiff is covered under the Govt. instruction as claimed by the plaintiff?OPD (7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD (8) Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she was entitled for regularisation of her services w.e.f. 1.2.1996. The case of the plaintiff was that services of juniors to her had been regularised but her case had not been considered for regularization of her services. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 4898 of 2009 (O&M) 5 had worked with the defendants up to July 1996. The defendants had failed to establish their plea that there had been breaks in her service by proving on record the muster roll. DW-1 Shamsher Singh had admitted that junior employees of the plaintiff had already been regularised as per the regularization policy in question. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 23, 2009 anita