RSA No.3293 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3293 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.01.2011 Murari Lal .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 15.4.1998 whereby he was reverted from the post of Accountant to Clerk-cum-typist. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he had been appointed as Clerk-cum-typist in District Rural Development Agency with effect from 17.8.1983. Plaintiff was promoted to the post of Accountant with effect from 18.7.1996 in the pay-scale of ` 1400- 2600. The Scheme was initially known as `DPAP' and later, the name of the Scheme was changed as `DDP'. As per the terms and conditions of the promotion order, plaintiff was liable to be RSA No.3293 of 2010 2 regularized on the post of Accountant after completion of six months of service. Deen Dayal was promoted as an Accountant in TRYSAM, a Scheme launched by the District Rural Development Agency Narnaul. The said person was illegally transferred to the Scheme known as DDP in-collusion with the defendants. The impugned order was illegal, null and void. The defendants had passed the impugned order on the plea that there was no vacancy in the TRYSAM Scheme,whereas, the plaintiff had been promoted in Scheme `DDP.' Defendants in their, written statement, averred that the plaintiff was appointed as a Clerk-cum-typist on 17.8.1983 purely on temporary basis. Plaintiff was promoted as an Accountant vide order dated 18.7.1996 purely on adhoc basis for six months in `DPAP' Scheme in District Rural Development Agency. The said Scheme was closed in the year 1995-96 and a new Scheme `DDP' had been launched. The plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with the new Scheme. There was no post of Accountant in `DPAP' Scheme. Plaintiff was awarded censure on 23.12.1996, 23.10.1997 and 18.7.1997 on account of various lapses and negligence while performing his duty. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD RSA No.3293 of 2010 3 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 7.Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 8.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff joined as a Clerk-cum-typist with the District Rural Development Agency in August 1983. Plaintiff was promoted as an Accountant with effect from 18.7.1996 on adhoc basis. The case of the plaintiff is that he was liable to continue as an Accountant,whereas, the case of the defendants is that after the closure of the Scheme, the plaintiff was liable to be reverted as a Clerk-cum-typist. The plaintiff was promoted as an Accountant in the Scheme known as `DPAP'. The said Scheme was later changed to `DDP'. The Scheme `DDP' has since been closed due to lapse of funds in the year 1995-96. Plaintiff was disbursed salary from another Scheme known as TRYSAM but the plaintiff could not be RSA No.3293 of 2010 4 adjusted in the said Scheme. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the impugned order of reversion was liable to be upheld as the Scheme in which the plaintiff was promoted as an Accountant has since been closed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 31, 2011 arya