[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lehna Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2289-1994
Lehna Singh .....Appellant
Versus
The Haryana State .....Respondent
1. Reserved on : 28.01.2026
2. Pronounced on : 06.02.2026
3. Uploaded on the website : 06.02.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is : Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full : Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by
the appellant/plaintiff impugning the judgments and decrees dated
21.12.1992 and 05.05.1994 passed by the learned Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court respectively, whereby his claim seeking benefit of
pay and allowances for the period from 20.12.1978 to 06.02.1981 has
been rejected. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their
original position before the trial Court.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the
appellant/plaintiff joined the Education Department as JBT Teacher on
22.10.1966. He submitted his resignation on 20.12.1978 but before it
could be accepted, he left and joined as Teacher in Nagar Nigam, New
Delhi, in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 from 21.12.1978 to 03.04.1979.
1 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -2-
Thereafter, he submitted an application on 05.04.1979 to again join as
JBT Teacher, which was forwarded by DPI, Haryana, Chandigarh. He
was allowed to join his duties on 07.02.1981 by the District Education
Officer, Karnal and thereafter, he retired from service on 31.03.2003.
He claimed pay and allowances from 20.12.1978 to 06.02.1981 (the
period he remained out of service) and the said claim was rejected by
the respondent-State, vide order dated 23.08.1982. He filed an appeal to
the DPI, Haryana, Chandigarh, which was rejected, vide order dated
19.10.1988. Thereafter, he submitted a revision petition before the
Secretary and Commissioner, Education Department, Haryana,
Chandigarh, which was also rejected, vide order dated 08.08.1989.
Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit on 09.04.1990 before the
learned Trial Court for impugning the order dated 23.08.1982 passed by
the District Education Officer, Karnal, whereby his claim for the benefit
of pay and allowances from 20.12.1978 to 06.02.1981 was rejected and
further orders dated 19.10.1988 and 08.08.1989 passed by the DPI,
Haryana and Secretary and Commissioner, Education Department,
Haryana, respectively, whereby his appeal and revision respectively,
were dismissed. In the suit, the learned Trial Court framed the
following issues:-
"1. Whether the order dt. 19.10.1988 passed by the DPI,
Hr. and also order passed by commissioner, Education,
Deptt. Hr. is illegal, null, void, malafide and against the
principle of natural justice?OPP.
2. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD.
3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit?OPD.
4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under sec. 80
CPC?OPD.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD.
2 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -3-
6. Relief."
3. The case set up by the appellant/plaintiff before the learned
Trial Court was that he submitted an application dated 05.04.1979 for
rejoining the Education Department and the same was kept pending by
the respondent and the appellant/plaintiff was only allowed to rejoin his
duties as JBT Teacher with effect from 07.02.1981. The said contention
of the appellant/plaintiff was rejected by the learned Trial Court while
recording findings in paras 9 and 10 of its judgment, which reads as
under:-
"9. Some of the admitted facts are that the plaintiff sent
his resignation on 20.12.1978, which was sent to the plff.
in original by the DEO, Karnal and as such that
resignation was never accepted. It is also admitted that the
plaintiff worked as teacher in Nagar Nigam, New-Delhi
from 21.12.1978 to 3.4.1979. The dispute is whether the
plff. had made an attempt on 5.4.1979 vide letter Ex. P1 to
join the Education Deptt. Hr. again and whether it was the
fault of the defendant for not giving the plff. an
opportunity to join from 5.4.1979 till 7.2.1981 when the
plaintiff again joined on the orders of DEO, Karnal dt.
5.2.1981 Thus as far as pay and allowances of period from
21.12.1978 to 5.4.1979 are concerned, same cannot be
given to the plff. as he remained posted in New-Delhi and
there was no opportunity for the plaintiff to have served
the Education Deptt. Haryana during that period.
10. Adverting to the question whether the plaintiff had
made an attempt on 5.4.1979 to join, it may be mentioned
here that the Ld. Govt. Pleader has rightly pointed out
letter Ex.D1 allegedly written by the plff. on 20.3.1989
wherein he had requested the Secy., Education Deptt.,
Haryana to release his G.P.F. and increments upto
December, 1978 as he was not willing to work with the
Education Deptt., Haryana. This letter written on
20.3.1980 clearly shows that the plaintiff had never got the
intention of joining before this date i.e. 20.3.1980 and as
such the allegations of the plaintiff that he had made an
application for giving him joining on 5.4.79 is false
altogether. Rather application Ed.D2, written by the
plaintiff on 5.8.1980 shows that he had made an
application only on 5.8.1980 to Head Master, Govt.
School, Anupura-Nain which was sent by the Headmaster
to the DEO, Karnal for proper action and on this
application DEO vide order dt. 5.2.1981 allowed the
3 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -4-
plaintiff to join."
4. Learned Trial Court also recorded a finding that there was
a concealment on the part of the appellant/plaintiff as he did not
disclose in the plaint that from 21.12.1978 to 03.04.1979 he had
worked as Teacher in Nagar Nigam, New Delhi. Finding recorded by
the learned Trial Court to this effect in para 11 reads thus:-
"11. Thus the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his
case of pay and allowances, from 20.12.1978 to 6.2.1981.
The plaintiff has concealed from the court that he worked
as Teacher in Nagar Nigam, New Delhi from 21.12.78 to
3.4.1979 and came to the court for getting the pay from
Haryana also during that period. This action of the
plaintiff is highly depricable."
5. Consequently, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was
dismissed with costs. The said judgment/decree passed by the learned
Trial Court was assailed by the appellant/plaintiff before the learned
First Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed, vide judgment
and decree dated 05.05.1994 by recording the following findings:-
"7. When the plaintiff appeared as PW1 he had stated in
examination-in-chief that he had submitted his resignation
letter on 20.12. 1978 from the post of JBT teacher in the
Haryana Education Department but the same not having
been accepted he had reported on 5.4.1979 to Head
Master, Govt, School Alupura Nahi for being allowed to
join his duty vide application Ex.P1 but he was not
allowed to join and was directed to meet the higher
authorities. He kept on meeting them repeatedly. In cross-
examination he has admitted that he had received his
resignation letter in original on 15.1.1979 with the
objection that he should deposit three months full pay. He
has further admitted that from 21.12.1978 to 3.4.1979 he
had been employed in the Primary School, Rang Puri,
Nagar Nigam, Delhi in the scale of 330-560. He has also
admitted that his resignation letter was not accepted. He
has also admitted that from 21.12.1978 to 3.4.1979 he
remained absent from duty in his parent department and
during this period he was working in the service of Delhi
Administration. Coupled with these significant admissions
in his cross-examination, there is the glaring fact that
there is not a word in the plaint about his having
4 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -5-
remained in the employment of Delhi Administration
from 21.12.1978 to 3.4.1979. Apart from the fact that this
is a material concealment by the plaintiff from the court
which by itself dis-entitles him to any relief, he cannot
take advantage both ways i.e. having received his pay for
this period from Delhi Administration he cannot ask for
pay from his parent department in the Haryana
Government without having worked there. In the
circumstances of the case I am of the view that his parent
department has treated him leniently by allowing him to
join duty despite his admitted absence from the same for a
considerable period of time. Even the punishment imposed
upon him for this lapse on his part i.e. stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect has been set aside by the
order of the District Judge, Karnal dated 15.6.1988 as
stated in the plaint which has been admitted in the written
statement. Therefore, I fail to see how the plaintiff has
suffered in any manner.
8. Examined from another angle, it is the case of the
plaintiff himself that his resignation letter was sent back to
him for meeting the objection there in. It was his bounden
duty to keep on reporting for work in his parent
department at the place and school of his posting till he
received any word from the higher authorities regarding
the fate of his resignation letter. It was not open to him
just to submit the resignation letter on 20.12.1978 and
start absenting himself from duty from the very next date.
Rather he left for Delhi without waiting for the result of
his resignation and got employment with the Delhi
Administration. This conduct amounts to dereliction of
duty and is yet another ground dis-entitling him to any
relief.
9. For the reasons recorded above there is no merit in
this appeal what-so-ever and the same is dismissed with
costs."
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the
impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court suffer from patent illegality, being cryptic,
erroneous, and founded on conjectures and surmises. It is further urged
that despite the appellant/plaintiff having submitted a duly supported
application dated 05.04.1979 for rejoining the Education Department,
the same was kept pending by the respondent authorities, and the
appellant/plaintiff was ultimately permitted to resume duties as a JBT
5 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -6-
Teacher with effect from 07.02.1981. Consequently, the impugned
judgments and decrees be set aside and appropriate relief be granted to
the appellant/plaintiff in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
vehemently opposed the claim of the appellant/plaintiff and has
supported the impugned judgments and decrees. It has been submitted
that although the appellant/plaintiff had tendered his resignation on
20.12.1978, the same was never accepted as it was not routed through
proper channel and was accordingly returned with objections. It has
been further contended that the appellant/plaintiff himself expressed
unwillingness to serve in the Education Department and had, in fact,
worked with Nagar Nigam, New Delhi, thereby remaining absent from
the Education Department, Haryana, without obtaining due sanction,
thereby committing misconduct. Consequently, the impugned orders
passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were
justified and calls for no interference by this Court and hence, present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. The matter stands admitted on 19.07.1995.
10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who
does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the
Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, suppression, or
misrepresentation of such facts amounts to an abuse of the process of
law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The Court,
being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its
6 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -7-
discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not come
with clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the
administration of justice but also disentitles the litigant from any
equitable relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to
approach the Court with utmost candour and bonafides is not a mere
formality but a substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard
can be made to the judgments in Hari Narain v. Badri Das - 1963 AIR
Supreme Court 1558; Welcome Hotel and others v. State of A.P. and
others - (1983) 4 SCC 575; G. Naryanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs.
and another v. Government of Karnataka and another - 1991 AIR
Supreme Court 1726; S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. - 1994 AIR Supreme Court 853; A.V.
Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others - 2007
AIR Supreme Court 1546; Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI - 2007(4)
RCR (Civil) 46; Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India -
2008(2) RCR (Civil) 555; K.D.Sharma v. SAIL and others - 2008(12)
SCC 481; G.Jayashree and others v. Bhagwamdas S. Patel and others
- 2009 AIR Supreme Court 1749 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and
others - 2010(2) SCC 114.
11. Concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant has failed to show that the same are perverse or illegal
or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material
evidence on record.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has made an
alternative prayer that the period from 20.12.1978 to 06.02.1981 be
counted for pensionary benefits. The said contention cannot be
7 of 8
RSA-2289-1994 -8-
accepted for the reason that the appellant/plaintiff had submitted his
resignation on 20.12.1978 and absented from the duty from the next
very day to join as Teacher in Nagar Nigam, New Delhi, and worked as
such from 24.12.1978 to 03.04.1979 and thereafter he rejoined the
services of his parental department on 07.02.1981 as JBT Teacher,
which prima facie shows that there is a wilful and unauthorised period
of absence on the part of the appellant/plaintiff resulting a break of
more than 02 years in service, and therefore, the said period cannot be
counted as part of service for any pensionary benefits as well.
13. No question of law, much less substantial question of law,
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
14. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
06.02.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
