High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-3270-2004  RD-P&H 1272 (28 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.3270 of 2004
Date of Decision : March 02, 2006.
Darshana Devi .... Appellant
State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant.
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.
She filed a suit for declaration on January 02, 1997 claiming that she had been appointed as Dai in the dispensary, by the Gram Panchayat with effect from July 01, 1991. The said dispensary in the village was being run by the Gram Panchayat. Other staff was also appointed. Later on, said dispensary was taken over by the State Government, under its own control. The plaintiff maintained that she had worked upto November, 1995 there and was not allowed to work and mark herself present thereafter. Defendants no.1 to 4 had appointed defendant no.5 as dai in the dispensary. The plaintiff challenged the appointment of defendant no.5 and also claimed the declaration that she was to be treated in continuous service.
The defendants contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was maintained by the defendants that the plaintiff remained absent from duty with effect from June 03, 1994 and after that, she voluntarily submitted her resignation on August 26, 1994. Thereafter, the plaintiff had no concern with the dispensary in question, nor she ever attended her duties as claimed by her.
R.S.A.No.3270 of 2004 : 2 :
Both the courts below have found it as a fact that the plaintiff had voluntarily and willingly submitted her resignation with effect from August 26, 1994 and having resigned voluntarily, has no right to make any grievance thereafter. It was also noticed by the learned first appellate court that even if the case of the plaintiff was to be accepted, then, nothing has been shown as to why she had remained absent from duty with effect from June 03, 1994 till February 01, 1996, for a period of almost two years.
The present suit had been filed by the plaintiff only on January 02, 1997. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court and her appeal also failed before the learned first appellate court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 02, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.