RAM PHOOL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Om Parkash was appointed as T. Mate in Irrigation Department whereas Jhabu Singh, Ram Phal, Karam Singh and Ram Phul were appointed as T. Mates on 01.01.1983, 16.08.1983, 01.11.1981 and 16.01.1983. THE appellants would claim that their service record was unblemished still, however, their services were terminated on 31.1.1986. THE appellants would term this order to be illegal, null, void and against the service rules. Some of the persons, who were joined the appellants as plaintiffs namely Om Parkash, Karam Singh, Nihal Singh, Tarsem Singh, Lal Chand and Hanuman were found to have rendered more than 4 years of service and they accordingly pleaded that their services were liable to be regularized. Plea also was that para 1.129 of sub para 7 of the P.W.D. Code (for short the 'Code') would not apply to the case of the plaintiffs and that while passing the order of termination, principles of natural justice were not followed. THEy had accordingly filed the civil suit to challenge the order dated 31.01.1986.

(2.) THE respondent appeared and filed joint written statement. THE locus of the appellants to file the suit was challenged. THE plea was that the suit was also not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the appellants were appointed purely on the temporary capacity on work charge basis and they would be governed by paragraph 1.129 of the Code as referred to above. Accordingly, the order of termination is justified. THE provisions of this Code entitles the respondent to terminate the services by issuing 10 days notice as they had become surplus in the department. Accordingly, it is stated that the order is not passed in an arbitrary manner and no employee junior to the appellants was kept in service. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:

(3.) LEARNED counsel has mainly referred to instructions dated 6.3.1985 (Ex.P8) to urge that the appellants were not entitled to be regularized as per the policy then existed. These instructions were concededly not pleaded in the suit filed by the appellants. Before the First Appellate Court, reliance was placed on Piara Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 1998 SLJ 856. The First Appellate Court also found that the service condition of the appellants were governed by the Code before issuance of instructions vide letter No. 6/4/87 dated 2 GS-I dated 24.3.1987 for the purpose of regularisation of the service of the work charge employee. It was found that these instructions provided that those who are completed 4 years of service or more continuous service on 31.12.1986, would be entitled to consideration for regularlisation. However, the services of the appellants had already been terminated on 31.1.1986.