Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TILAK RAJ & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tilak Raj & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-2625-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 872 (16 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 2625 of 2003

Date of Decision: February 7, 2006

Tilak Raj and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Siddharth Batra, DAG Haryana,

for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiffs having concurrently lost before both the Courts below have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. They filed as suit for declaration claiming that the order dated November 15, 1996 passed by the authorities whereby the plaintiffs have been reverted to the post of Washing Boy and Chowkidars was illegal, bad and violative of the principles of natural justice. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they were working as helper tyreman and helper mechanic and similar other posts but they have been reverted to a lower post and as such the said order being violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules and was liable to be set aside.

R.S.A. No. 2625 of 2003 [2]

The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiffs have never been reverted to any lower post, but merely a post on which they were working was re-designated. Consequently, it was claimed by the defendants that the plaintiffs could not be heard to make any grievance against the aforesaid order.

The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on the record accepted the plea of the defendants and held that the posts on which the plaintiffs were holding were merely re-designated, and therefore, the claim made by the plaintiffs that they have been reverted was totally without any justification.

The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Similar findings were recorded in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court. The appeal of the plaintiffs 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 record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 7, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


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.