R.S.A. No. 2579 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2579 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2009 Kartar Singh and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 6.12.2006 and 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants seeking declaration that they were entitled to be regularised on completion of two years of service, has been ordered to be dismissed. The appellants herein with other plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that according to instructions issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, services of the plaintiffs were required to be regularised on completion of two years of service, from the date of their joining. The case set up was that the appellant/plaintiffs were not regularised on completion of two years of service, but on later date. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendants wherein plea was taken that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable and the R.S.A. No. 2579 of 2008 (O&M) -2- locus standi of the plaintiff/appellants to maintain the suit was also challenged. On merits, it was contended that as per instructions of the Government, the drivers, were regularised on completion of two years of satisfactory regular service, but the plaintiffs were not regularised on completion of two years of satisfactory service, as they did not fulfil the requisite terms and conditions. Plaintiffs were in fact regularised as and when they filfilled the terms and conditions, as stipulated. No replication was filed. The learned trial Court on pleadings of the parties was pleased to frame the following issues: - “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to regularisation of their services after completion of two years of satisfactory regular service together with the arrears of pay and allowance from deemed dates? OPP 2. Whether the orders passed by defendant No. 2 regularising the service of plaintiffs on different dates as mentioned in the plaint are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs, if so its effect? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff have not exhausted all the remedies available under the law, if so its effect? OPD 6. Relief.” R.S.A. No. 2579 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Issues framed were answered against the plaintiff/appellants and it was held that the regularisation could be ordered only against the availability of vacancies and not on completion of period specified in the instructions. Only two of the plaintiffs i.e. present appellants preferred appeal. Appeal was also dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been affirmed. It may be noticed that the appeal was also dismissed as time barred as no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay in filing the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants impugnes the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below on the plea that the learned Courts below were not right in non-suiting the plaintiff/appellants as it was for the respondent/defendants to have produced the vacancy position in the Court, and having not done so, an adverse inference was required to be drawn under Section 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that the substantial question of law, therefore, arises in this appeal as to: - "Whether the learned Courts below were justified in not drawing adverse inference against the defendant/respondents?" However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The pleadings of the parties show, that it was not a case of plaintiffs that in spite of the availability of vacancies, appellants were not regularised. The case pleaded in the plaint was that they were entitled to be regularised on completion of two years of service, which was found to be not sustainable. R.S.A. No. 2579 of 2008 (O&M) -4- It may further be noticed that no issue was framed whether the plaintiffs were required to be regularised against available vacancies. Therefore, no question of drawing adverse inference against the respondents for not producing the vacancy position arose before the learned trial Court. It may further be noticed that nothing has been shown or pleaded as to how the findings of the learned lower appellate Court in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiffs was barred by limitation, could be interfered with. Substantial question of law as raised does not arise for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 20, 2009 R.S.