Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Santosh Kumar on 23 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008849
2024:PHHC:008849
RSA-263-1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107 RSA-263-1996
Date of decision:23.01.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB ... APPELLANT
VS.
SANTOSH KUMAR ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, DAG, Punjab,
for the appellant.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Chahal, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. State-defendant is in second appeal before this Court assailing
the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
2. Facts, in brief, may be noticed.
3. Santosh Kumar, plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a Ward
Servant in 1976 and by order dated 03.03.1982, he has promoted as a
Basic Health Worker. On 18.07.1983, he was reverted to the original
post. On his appeal, by order dated 12/19.02.1986, he was again
promoted as a Basic Health Worker. Averring that his second reversion
by order dated 16.05.1988 as Ward Servant, is illegal, plaintiff-
respondent filed the suit challenging the reversion order.
4. Upon notice, defendant/appellant-State appeared and contested
the suit by taking various objections. A stand was taken that the plaintiff-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008849
2024:PHHC:008849
RSA-263-1996 -2-
respondent was promoted as a Basic Health Worker on ad-hoc basis for
89 days and was never regularized. It has also been submitted that the
previous reversion was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent by way of
a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on
27.10.1983. It has also been submitted that he did not possess the
requisite qualification for the post of Basic Health Worker and was,
therefore, posted as Ward Servant, a Class-IV post. Replication was filed
by the plaintiff-respondent, controverting the stand taken by the State.
After framing of issues and leading of evidence by the parties, Trial
Court by judgment and decree dated 24.08.1992, decreed the suit. State-
defendant remained unsuccessful before the First Appellate Court, which
dismissed its appeal on 04.09.1995. Hence, the second appeal, which
was admitted in the year 1996 and operation of the impugned decree was
stayed.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
6. The entire controversy involves around the interpretation of
letter dated 12/19.02.1986, Ex.P-5. Its relevant translated extract is
reproduced as under:-
"2. The Govt. after considering the appeal
of Sh. Santosh Kaumar Class IV employee,
regarding his reversion has decided to promote him
on adhoc basis from the date he was reverted and
allow him to continue as Basic Health Worker. In
this regard it is clarified that he will not be entitled
to any financial benefit because he has not worked
during this period against the post of Basic Health
Worker. In future, whenever promotion is made to
the post of Basic Health Worker all the class IV
employees of the Department working at that time be
considered. In case some amendment in the Service
Regulation is required to be made, necessary action
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008849
2024:PHHC:008849
RSA-263-1996 -3-
in this regard be taken.
3. In view of the above it is requested that
above said order of the Govt. be implemented
immediately.
4. The case file regarding appointment Sh.
Hassan Lal, Gurcharan Singh etc. as Basic Health
Workers (File page No.1 to 165) which was sent to
the Govt. with your letter under reference is
returned herewith. The receipt of this letter may be
acknowledged."
7. A perusal of the above reproduced letter shows that the
promotion of the plaintiff-respondent was on purely ad-hoc basis and he
was never regularized on the post of Basic Health Worker. Even during
the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent could not
show any material to substantiate his argument that the plaintiff-
respondent had been regularized or that he had acquired the requisite
qualification for promotion.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
Courts below have committed serious irregularity, while decreeing the
suit.
9. As a consequence of the above discussion, appeal is allowed.
Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are
set aside and suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
23.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008849
3 of 3
