Tehsildar Kharkhoda District ... vs Karambir
2022 Latest Caselaw 16967 P&H

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
110
                                               CM-9403-C-2022 in/and
                                                 RSA-232-2017 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 15.12.2022

The Tehsildar Kharkhoda, District Sonipat and others        .....Appellants

                                  Versus

Karambir                                                    .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :   Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana
            for the appellants.

            None for the respondent.

                                   ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

CM-9403-C-2022

Prayer in the instant application is for fixing an actual date

of hearing in the appeal.

Heard.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the

same is allowed and the appeal is taken up on board for hearing today

itself.

RSA-232-2017 (O&M)

Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the

respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide

judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012. The appeal preferred by the

appellants/defendants against the said judgment and decree was

dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 06.08.2016.

The appellants/defendants are now before this Court in Regular Second

Appeal.

                                 1 of 4

 CM-9403-C-2022 in/and
RSA-232-2017 (O&M)                                                       -2-

Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their

original positions in the suit.

Suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff seeking

decree for declaration to the effect that his services were entitled to be

regularized as Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar with effect from 30.09.2003/

01.10.2003 as per notification of Haryana Government dated

01.10.2003. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to get arrears

of pay and other benefits of service with effect from 01.10.2003 along

with interest @ 18% per annum. Decree of mandatory injunction was

further sought for directing the defendants to release the above benefits

to the plaintiff.

Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff by

recording concurrent findings to the effect that the case of the plaintiff

fell within the purview of Haryana Government Notification No.GSR-

24/Const/Art-309/2003 dated 01.10.2003 (Ex.P-9), as he was appointed

against a duly sanctioned post, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit

of regularization of his services. The Courts below while decreeing the

suit of the plaintiff further observed that since the plaintiff had been

serving in the defendant department for the last 15 years, and

performing dual job of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar, therefore, great

injustice would be caused to him if his services were not regularized.

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants argues that

the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff was working as a

part time employee whereas the Government Notification No.GSR-

24/Const/Art-309/2003 dated 01.10.2003 (Ex.P-9) only covered daily

2 of 4

CM-9403-C-2022 in/and RSA-232-2017 (O&M) -3-

wagers, contractual and adhoc employees. Therefore, a parent error had

been committed by mis-interpreting the said notification (Ex.P-9) as the

plaintiff was not covered under the said notification (Ex.P-9). A prayer

has, therefore, been made for setting aside of the impugned judgment

and decree.

I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant

material on record.

This Court does not find any merit in the submissions

made by learned counsel appearing for the defendants. The submissions

of the learned counsel for the defendants falls flat in the face in the

wake of the admission made by DW-1 Gyani Ram, Tehsildar,

Kharkhoda. DW-1 Gyani Ram, Tehsildar, Kharkhoda himself has

admitted during his cross-examination before the Trial Court that the

plaintiff had been working as a Sweeper during the day and as

Chowkidar during the night. This leaves no manner of doubt that the

plaintiff was discharging dual functions under the defendant

department. Still further, Haryana Government Notification dated

01.10.2003 (Ex.P-9) was issued by the State for regularization of

adhoc/contractual employees who had completed three years of service

on 30.09.2003. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff was appointed

as a Sweeper vide letter dated 17.04.1997. The post for his appointment

i.e. post of one Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar was sanctioned vide letter

dated 31.03.1993. It, thus, is apparent from the material on record that

the appointment of the plaintiff was made against a sanctioned post,

and still further, admittedly the plaintiff had been uninterruptedly

3 of 4

CM-9403-C-2022 in/and RSA-232-2017 (O&M) -4-

discharging dual duty in the defendant department for the last 15 years.

Resultantly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the case of the

plaintiff is covered under the Haryana Government Notification dated

01.10.2003 (Ex.P-9).

On being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the

defendants failed to bring to the notice of this Court anything on record

to show that the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below were

either contrary to record or suffered from any material illegality.

As a sequel to the above, this Court does not find any error

in the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the instant appeal

being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

15.12.2022                                 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay                                             JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                 4 of 4