LPA No.104 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.104 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 Ram Swarup ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Challenge in the present appeal is order dated 28.11.2007 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 21.12.1992 dispensing with the service of the petitioner, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 28.11.1978 in the office of respondent No.2 and was regularised on 4/6.2.1980. Earlier cadre of the LPA No.104 of 2008 2 services of the Consumer Stores and the apex body i.e Haryana State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. was the one and the same. However, staff services rules of Haryana State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. came to be amended with effect from 14.12.1983. Option was given to the employees to opt either in the District Cooperative level stores or in the apex cooperative body; the petitioner - appellant filed an appeal pursuant to the options called, which was forwarded on 1.2.1984 to the Staff Committee to take decision; nothing was heard from the side of the respondents; services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 21.12.1992 and the petitioner was paid three months’ advance salary of Rs.6178.20. The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.12.1992 on the ground that without taking decision on the option exercised by the petitioner his services cannot be dispensed with and juniors have been retained in service of respondent No.2. 3. The respondents by way of filing written statement refuted the contentions made by the petitioner and specifically denied filing of appeal seeking option for respondent No.2. 4. Learned Single Judge observed that since three months’ salary was paid to the petitioner at the time of order dated 21.12.1992 was passed dispensing with his services and the petitioner was never absorbed in the service of the apex body, hence the petitioner’s services were rightly dispensed with. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly, order dated 21.12.1992 records that it is impossible to give salary to the Accounts Clerk due to the financial LPA No.104 of 2008 3 condition of the Cooperative Stores, hence, Rs.6178.20 is being paid vide pay order No.33328 dated 21.10.1992. Undisputedly, the petitioner was never absorbed in the apex body. Learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that now the sanctioned strength of the Cooperative Stores does not permit continuation of the petitioner in service. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge. 8. We are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 07.04.2010 sk.