Staet Of Haryana vs Rakesh Kumar

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Staet Of Haryana vs Rakesh Kumar on 6 May, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062606




RSA-843-1999
        1999 (O&M)                                                  -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


219                                                RSA-843-1999 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision:06.05.2024

The State of Haryana and others

                                                            .... Appellants

                                       Vs


Rakesh Kumar
                                                            ..... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:     Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

             None for the respondent.

                                 ***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendants are in second appeal before this Court, challenging the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below.

2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff plaintiff-respondent is that he was working on n Class IV post on daily-wage daily wage since January, 1988. He averred that he completed five years of service on 31.03.1993 and in view of the instructions dated 27.05.1993, issued by the Government of Haryana Haryana, he was entitled to be regularized in service. Names of 76 daily wagers were recommended for regularization. However, his nname was not forwarded. He served a notice under Section 80 CPC and was not permitted to join duties w.e.f. 02.07.1993. He filed a suit for declaration for directing the 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:09:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062606 RSA-843-1999 1999 (O&M) -2- defendants to regularize him as Beldar and for declaration to the effect that the action acti of the defendants, whereby he has not been permitted to join duty, is illegal.

3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendant defendants by filing a written statement wherein, preliminary objections were raised. It was submitted that his services have been regularized w.e.f. 001.04.1993 and plaintiff has refused to perform his duty and has remained absent. No replication was filed by the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. By judgment dated 03.12.1997, trial Court passed a decree directing the defendants defendant to allow the plaintiff to resume duty and to release the arrears of salary. A direction was also issued to plaintiff to work as Beldar and defendants defendant were given liberty to take action against the plaintiff if he refuses to perform his duties. Defendant Defendants remained unsuccessful in the first appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated 10.02.1998, resulting in the institution of the present appeal.

5. By referring to the evidence on record, State counsel has argued that the plaintiff had remained absent from duty and was not entitled to the arrears of salary.

6. I have heard Statee counsel and considered his submissions besides examining the record with with his able assistance.

7. A specific stand has been taken by the defendant defendants that the plaintiff is not reporting on duty w.e.f 03.07.1993. A show cause notice 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:09:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062606 RSA-843-1999 1999 (O&M) -3- dated 07.07.1993, Ex. P-8 P was issued to the plaintiff to explain his absence.. It was mentioned in in the notice that when he was assigned duty during day hours, he refused to do physical work and when he was given night duty, he was found to be sleeping.. It was further mentioned that he had declined the duty of the bill distribution on the pretext that he was not educated and that he has not been reporting for duty thereafter. Plaintiff submitted a reply to this notice and the defendant defendants did not take any further action, action but this does not lead to the assumption that the respondent was regularly discharging discharging the duties. A perusal of some other documents on o record, although they are not exhibited, also show that the plaintiff had d been absent from duty.

8. In the above background, this Court is of the view that the decree passed by the trial Court granting arrears of salary to him is erroneous. The Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah (2007)7 SCC 689, has held that even in the absence of statutory provision, provi the normal rule is "No work no pay". Apex Court has observed that in appropriate cases court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate or order in consonance with law.. Facts established established on the record clearly show that plaintiff had been een remiss and was not attending his duties. Therefore, the decree passed by the courts below granting arrears of salary to the plaintiff deserves to be set aside.

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:09:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062606 RSA-843-1999 1999 (O&M) -4-

9. Judgment and decree passed by the courts below granting arrears of salary to the plaintiff-respondent respondent is set aside to this limited extent.

10. Appeal is disposed of.

                                               ( SUVIR SEHGAL )
06.05.2024                                          JUDGE
pooja saini


      Whether Speaking/Reasoned                 Yes/No
      Whether Reportable                        Yes/No




                                  4 of 4
               ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:09:44 :::