Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI KRISHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Krishan v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-3600-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5383 (8 August 2006)

R.S.A.No. 3600 of 2005 [1]

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A.No. 3600 of 2005

Date of Decision: 1 - 8 - 2006

Hari Krishan ........Appellant

v.

State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA
***

Present: Mr.A.K.Jindal, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

P.S.PATWALIA, J. (Oral)

The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. First appeal was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff had claimed that he should be absorbed on regular basis as a Class IV employee. The facts as culled out in the judgment of the trial Court are as hereunder:- "14. In view of the above submissions and after careful perusal of the case file besides having gone through the respective evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is a matter of fact that initially, the plaintiff was appointed on part time basis as a Class IV employee w.e.f. 1.10.1982. It was a very small period when he was appointed on regular basis. Thereafter, the post was abolished and by taking a lenient view, he was again appointed purely as a part time employee and at the collector rate. Later on, even the part time post of the Water Carrier or the Mali was also shifted. The instructions R.S.A.No. 3600 of 2005 [2]

were issued by the Director Secondary Education Haryana to abolish all the part time posts. In compliance of the directions received from the Director Secondary Education, Haryana, the plaintiff was finally relieved on 29.3.1988.

15. It is the settled proposition of law that when the plaintiff has simply worked either on part time basis or purely against a non- substantive post, he cannot claim to be absorbed against the regular post. More so, he was relieved on 29.3.1988 and he has filed the present suit on 2.6.2000. The factor of limitation has also to be considered. In fact, no legal right has been accrued to the plaintiff to appoint him against the substantive or regular post. However, on the humanitarian ground, a lenient view could have been taken if some regular post was in existence at the time when he was relieved but it has come on record that in fact, no regular post was existing against which the case of the plaintiff could have been considered." A perusal of the facts reproduced above would show that the plaintiff was relieved on his post being abolished. He had thereafter worked only on part time basis or against a non-substantive post. Even from those assignments he was ultimately relieved in March, 1988. The present suit was filed by him in June, 2000. It was thus grossly belated. The Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No question of law arises for determination by this Court. The regular second appeal is therefore dismissed.

( P.S.PATWALIA )

August 1, 2006. JUDGE

RC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.