IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2706 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Randhir Singh .....Appellant Versus Chief Secretary and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiff-Randhir Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.) Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under: “2. As per the case of the plaintiff, he was appointed by defendant no.-2-Deputy Commissioner on the salary of Rs.1950/- per month, on the post of Paledar/Bastawar vide letter No.276- 77/SKPS dated 15.01.2001. He worked honestly, sincerely and to the satisfaction of the defendants, but he was removed from RSA No.2706 of 2007(O&M) ..2.. service without any notice and without assigning any reason. There was no complaint or any adverse remarks against him. He requested the defendants to re-instate him, but with no result. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he filed the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement, the various pleas of the plaintiff were denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed only for one month and seven days at the rate of Rs.1950/- per month and Rs.77/- per day, as per the budget allotment, for cleaning the bags of the record room. Along with the plaintiff, Ram Kanwar son of Wazir Chand was also appointed. They were paid Rs.2500/- each for their service. Thereafter, the defendants did not have any budget for making the payment of any salary nor there was any necessity. It was denied that the work and the conduct of the plaintiff was satisfactory. The suit was also contested on the grounds of locus- standi, maintainability, estoppel, cause of action and joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement in service with effect from 15.02.2001 along with all the consequential benefits appurtenant thereto?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD. RSA No.2706 of 2007(O&M) ..3. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. As per Ex.D-2, plaintiff was appointed for a fixed period for one month and 7 days. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had failed to establish his case. The case of the plaintiff was that as per the appointment letter issued to him Ex.P2, it was not mentioned that the plaintiff was only appointed upto one month and 7 days. This plea of the plaintiff is without any force as the plaintiff has only placed on record a photocopy of appointment letter alleged to have been issued to him on 15.02.2001 but has failed to prove on record the original of the said order to substantiate his plea that in fact he had not been appointed upto one month and 7 days. Whereas, as per the appointment order of the plaintiff placed on record by the defendants Ex.D- 2, the plaintiff was only appointed upto one month and 7 days and was paid salary qua the said period. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. October 30, 2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge