RSA No.1516 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1516 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2010. Om Pal .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Om Pal-Plaintiff, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that he was appointed as telephone attendant in Canal Rest House at Yamuna Nagar by defendants-State of Haryana and others in the year 1996 and worked there upto 1999 without break. Thereafter he was not paid any salary for the work done by him under the defendants. Plaintiff's father made various representations claiming regularization of services of the plaintiff, but without any result. The plaintiff worked as work charge employee. The plaintiff filed CWP No.5480 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court by directing the defendant to decide the plaintiff's representation. Thereupon the defendants pass order dated 25.06.2002 rejecting the plaintiff's representation for regularization of his services. The said order is illegal, non-speaking, null and void. The plaintiff filed CWP No.16166 of 2002 to challenge the said order, but the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file RSA No.1516 of 2010 (O & M) -2- civil suit or to move labour Court. Thereupon the instant suit was filed to claim regularization of services of the plaintiff as Telephone Attendant and also to claim pending salary with other benefits, by declaring order dated 25.06.2002 as illegal, null and void. The plaintiff also alleged that name of his brother Gulshan Kumar has been wrongly recorded in the pay roll instead of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's brother was working with a private firm and was not even qualified to be appointed as Telephone Attendant. Defendants broadly controverted the allegations of the plaintiff. It was inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff worked as Telephone Attendant-cum-Chowkidar on daily wages as work charge employee with effect from 01.09.1997 to 30.11.1997 and from 01.03.1998 to 31.05.1998 whereas plaintiff's brother Gulshan Kumar worked in the same capacity with effect from 01.12.1997 to 28.02.1998. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to regularization of services as no policy for regularization of services has been issued by the Government after December, 1996. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended RSA No.1516 of 2010 (O & M) -3- that the plaintiff continuously worked under the defendants since the year 1996 till October 1999 and is, therefore, entitled to regularization of his services in accordance with policy of the State Government. The contention is completely devoid of merit. Except the sole oral self serving statement of the plaintiff, there is no other evidence on record to depict that the plaintiff worked with the defendants since the year 1996 till the year 1999. On the other hand, defendants have produced pay rolls depicting that the plaintiff worked on daily wages since 01.09.1997 to 30.11.1997 and from 01.03.1998 to 31.05.1998 and did not ever work thereafter. Plaintiff's brother Gulshan Kumar worked as on daily wages as work charge employee with effect from 01.12.1997 to 28.02.1998. Defendant's version is thus substantiated by documentary evidence whereas there is practically no evidence in support of the plaintiff's version except his bald, oral statement. Plaintiff's version that his brother Gulshan Kumar never worked under the defendants is also not proved. The plaintiff has examined Jaswant Lal PW-2 to depose that plaintiff's brother was working with him since the year 1993. However, no documentary evidence have been produced in this regard. On the other hand, even plaintiff's brother Gulshan Kumar has not stepped into the witness box to support the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff. There is also no evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's plea that plaintiff's brother Gulshan Kumar was not even qualified to work as telephone Attendant. There is no evidence regarding the qualification of Gulshan Kumar. In addition to the aforesaid, even if the plaint averments are taken to be correct at face value, even then the plaintiff is not RSA No.1516 of 2010 (O & M) -4- entitled to regularization of service. The plaintiff has not pleaded any Government policy under which he claims regularization of his service. No such policy has either been produced in evidence. On the contrary, defendants have specifically pleaded that no policy for regularization of services has been issued by the Government after December 1996. In this view of the matter also, the plaintiff cannot be granted relief of regularization of his services. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below to non suit the plaintiff. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons. Consequently, the said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 10.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE