RSA No.2917 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2917 of 2010 Date of decision: July 20, 2011. Balwinder Singh & Ors. ... Appellant(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Amit Bakshi, Advocate, for Shri Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs to the suit. The suit filed was for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the order dated 27th July, 2004 passed by defendant No.2, i.e., Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh in the case of a similarly situated co- employee, Tarsem Lal is fully applicable to the case of the plaintiffs and therefore, they are also entitled to be reinstated in service. The plaintiff- appellants had also sought consequential relief of mandatory injunction that they be reinstated into service by the defendants and be also paid arrears of pay along with all necessary allowances and increments/seniority. Shri Amit Bakshi, Counsel appearing for Shri Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the appellants, has stated that similarly situated SPO Tarsem Lal had filed a civil suit which was decreed and the first and second RSA No.2917 of 2010 -: 2 :- appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial court were dismissed and Tarsem Lal was taken back into service. Counsel states that the appellant-plaintiffs could not be discriminated by the State as under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to equal treatment. Argument raised by Counsel for the appellants, on a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. It has come in evidence that Balwinder Singh and Suraj Parkash had earlier filed civil suits for their reinstatement and they were dismissed by the civil court. This fact is discernible from a perusal of para 11 of the judgment of the trial court. Both the appellants had not preferred any appeal. The trial court further held that as per Para 9 of the Standing Order dated 30.10.1990 Ex.D3, Superintendent of Police can discharge any SPO if his work and conduct is not found satisfactory. The court further held that services of the plaintiffs were dispensed with in 1996 and the suit was filed in 2005. The suit was found to be time barred and hit by the principles of res-judicata also. Counsel for the appellants submits that the orders whereby the services of the petitioners were discharged, if the veil is lifted, it would be evident that same is stigmatic in nature, therefore, the appellants could not be discharged from service without holding a regular enquiry. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellants as two of the appellants had earlier filed suits which were dismissed and they had not preferred any appeal. Furthermore, the relief has been denied to the appellants on the ground that they have filed the suit after the period of limitation was over. Lastly, Counsel could not advance any argument as to how the RSA No.2917 of 2010 -: 3 :- case of these plaintiff-appellants was para-materia to the case of aforesaid Tarsem Lal. Though the question formulated by the Counsel may look legal but when applied on the facts of the case, same will not arise. The courts below, while appreciating the evidence, have held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief, therefore, no ground is made out to cause interference. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 20, 2011. Judge kadyan