High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Harbhajan Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors - RSA-101-2004  RD-P&H 927 (17 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 101 of 2004
Date of Decision: February 20, 2006
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- None for the appellant.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The case has been called out twice since morning. No one appears on behalf of the appellant.
A perusal of the record of the case shows that repeated adjournments had been made by the appellant. Consequently, on February 6, 2006, when the matter was adjourned for today, it was made clear that no further adjournment would be allowed.
I have gone through the record of the case.
This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals being R.S.A. No. 101 of 2004 and R.S.A. No. 102 of 2004, as both the appeals have arisen out of one suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration on March 25, 1996, challenging the order dated June 31, 1994, whereby the plaintiff had been R.S.A. No. 101of 2004 
retired from service. She claimed that she was appointed as Dai and had been retired on attaining the age of 58 years whereas she was continued to the age of 60 years.
The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
It was held that she was entitled to serve till the age of 60 years, and therefore, the order of retirement was held to be bad. However, the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff such as fixation of salary etc. were held to be time barred and as such were declined.
The defendants filed one appeal before the learned first Appellate Court and another appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the appeals were decided together by the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and found that although the plaintiff was appointed as Dai in the year 1935 but later on she had been absorbed as a trained Dai w.e.f.
February 8, 1954. As per the Rules applicable to trained Dai she was entitled to serve till the age of 58 years. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed. The suit filed by the plaintiff was consequently dismissed.
From the perusal of the grounds of appeal and the various findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, I do not find that the aforesaid findings are erroneous in any manner. The learned first Appellate Court has taken into consideration the service conditions of the trained Dai and also the factum of promotion of the plaintiff as trained Dai, although she was initially appointed as Dai. I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference in the present second appeal.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
R.S.A. No. 101of 2004 
February 20, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.