RSA No.2863 of 1988 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2863 of 1988 Date of decision: December 14, 2010. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Appellant(s) v. Chandgi Ram & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant(s). Shri Satish Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Chandagi Ram – plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the State of Haryana that he was appointed as a Peon in Government High School, Daroli after he was successful in an interview and his services have been wrongly terminated in order to accommodate Rajinder, defendant No.4, proforma respondent. Notice of the suit was issued. State of Haryana submitted that on 2.12.1985, Chandagi Ram plaintiff was appointed as a Peon on temporary basis on the condition that in case some regular employee joins in his place, he will have to leave the job. It was contended by the State of Haryana that Rajinder, defendant No.4 was transferred to Government High RSA No.2863 of 1988 -: 2 :- School, Daroli from Government High School, Bodia Kamalpur on 2.12.1985 and therefore, Rajinder was allowed to join the duty on 2.12.1985, since the services of the plaintiff were temporary, he was relieved from the job. The suit filed by Chandgi Ram was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved against the same, he had filed an appeal. The lower appellate court held that Rajinder – defendant No.4, proforma respondent, was not a regular employee, therefore, services of the plaintiff – Chandgi Ram could not be dispensed with to adjust another employee who was also not a regular employee. Lower appellate court also reversed the finding of the trial court on issue No.1 and held that termination of Chandgi Ram was bad in the eyes of law. The present appeal was admitted on December 14, 1988 and operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed. Thereafter, an application for modification of the stay order was filed and this Court, on 7th February, 1989, ordered that status quo regarding service be maintained. Thereafter, present regular second appeal was listed on December 1, 2010 and the Counsel for the State was asked to acquaint this Court regarding the status of the service of the plaintiff – respondent. Shri K.C. Bhatia, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from Mrs. Manoj Kaushik, DEO, Rewari has stated that the plaintiff- respondent is continuing in service and he will attain his age of superannuation on 31st January, 2011 and Chandgi Ram belongs to the category of disabled person, therefore, he will get extension of two years and thus, would retire on 31st January, 2013. In the present case, the plaintiff-respondent had joined the service of the State of Haryana in the year 1985, hence, he has already put in RSA No.2863 of 1988 -: 3 :- more than 25 years of service. At this stage, it will be difficult to disturb the finding of the lower appellate court, especially when State failed to prove that Rajinder, proforma respondent, who was posted in place of the plaintiff was a regular employee. Therefore, the plaintiff- respondent, who was a temporary employee, could not be substituted with another temporary employee. Be that as it may, plaintiff – respondent has already served the State of Haryana for more than 25 years; he is a handicap person; and is on the verge of retirement. In these circumstances, no ground is made out to disturb the findings of the lower appellate Court, especially when no substantial question of law has either been formulated or agitated by the State. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] December 14, 2010. Judge kadyan