Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011883
2024:PHHC:011883
RSA-4626-2018 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
104 RSA-4626-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.01.2024.
Satpal ...Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, AAG, Haryana.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by appellant/
plaintiff against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below,
vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff was
initially appointed as Counter-Clerk on daily wages in the Office of General
Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind, w.e.f. 28.05.1983 and is working as
Counter Clerk in the Office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind,
continuously against the sanctioned post of Counter-Clerk. Like him, many
other persons were also appointed on daily wages as Ticket Verifier in same
cadre and pay scale in various depots of Haryana Roadways and their
services have been regularized after completion of 240 days in a calender
year as per decision dated 17.03.1988 of the High Court in Civil Writ
Petition No.4743 of 1986. Another similar cadre employee Naresh Kumar,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011883
2024:PHHC:011883
RSA-4626-2018 (O&M) - 2-
who is junior to the plaintiff, was also initially appointed on daily wages
w.e.f. 01.11.1989 and his services have been regularized w.e.f. 07.12.1990
after completion of 240 days by defendant No.2, vide order No.46415/RK
dated 07.12.1990. Similarly, the services of another junior employee Smt.
Madhu Sharma have also been regularized w.e.f. 01.06.1986 after
completion of 240 days as per judgment of Court dated 11.01.1989. The
High Court has also ordered to regularize the services of Ticket Verifiers in
Civil Writ Petition No.4743 of 1986, vide order dated 17.02.1988 as well as
in Civil Writ Petitions No.6315 of 1998 and 5532 of 2000 vide order dated
19.12.2011 and held that services of those persons be regularized who have
completed 240 days in a calender year. As per the said order, keeping in
view the length of service, 172 Ticket Verifiers have been regularized after
completion of 240 days, vide order dated 07.08.2012 of defendant no.2,
except the plaintiff. Further, the post of Ticket Verifier and Counter-Clerk
are identical one, having equal pay scale, seniority and promotion line as per
Transport Department, Haryana Roadways Group 'C' Rules, 1995. The
plaintiff fulfils all the terms and conditions for regularization of his services
after 240 days as applicable in the case of Ticket Verifiers, whose services
has been regularized after completion of 240 days in a calender year. But the
defendants did not regularize his services w.e.f. 27.01.1984 on completion
of 240 days. Thus, the action of defendants is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and
discriminatory.
3. The suit of plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court, vide
judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff
before the First Appellate Court was dismissed, vide judgment and decree
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011883
2024:PHHC:011883
RSA-4626-2018 (O&M) - 3-
dated 08.05.2018. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial
Court returned the findings on issue No.1 regarding declaration and
mandatory injunction as prayed for, in favour of the plaintiff, but dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation. Before the First
Appellate Court also, the findings on issue No.1 were not challenged and
findings qua only limitation were challenged. He has contended that the
present suit is well within limitation as the limitation would start to run from
impugned order dated 07.08.2012 and the suit was filed before the trial
Court on 13.02.2013. The cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant
is recurring one and accrued everyday and every month when the benefit of
regularization was denied to the appellant. He has further submitted that the
bar of limitation cannot come in the way of regularizing the services of the
appellant as case of the appellant is at par with that of other similarly
situated employees of the department, whose services have been regularized
after completion of 240 days in a calender year.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through
the records thoroughly.
6. In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically challenged the
impugned order dated 03.09.1995 of defendant No.2 and sought declaration
to the effect that said order was illegal, null and void and services of
plaintiff were to be regularized from 27.01.1984. But this order was not
challenged by him till the verdict of this Court qua Ticket Verifiers on
19.11.2011. It does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that he was not
aware about the said order, when after being employed on daily wages for
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011883
2024:PHHC:011883
RSA-4626-2018 (O&M) - 4-
certain period his services had been regularized, vide the said order dated
03.09.1995 and he had been enjoying the benefits under the said order since
then. He did not sought any declaration based upon earlier policy and he
accepted the order of regularization in 1995 as correct with full knowledge.
In case, had there been no regularization of Ticket Verifiers in terms of
Court order, he would not have challenged the same. The plaintiff was
aggrieved against the impugned order dated 03.03.1995 and not against the
order dated 07.08.2012 vide which the services of Ticket Verifiers were
regularized. As the plaintiff had sought the declaration for declaring the
impugned order dated 03.09.1995 issued by defendant No.2 as illegal, null
and void and to set aside the same, so the law of limitation applies to him
and it has been rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by
limitation, as it had been filed after delay of more than 18 years.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present Regular Second
Appeal fails as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial
question of law.
8. Appeal stands dismissed.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
29.01.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011883
4 of 4
