SHIV CHARAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Shiv Charan who was successful in the trial Court but has been non-suited by the lower Appellate Court has filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF and others were appointed as drivers on contract basis by Haryana Roadways (under State of Haryana). Some other drivers were regularized w.e.f. 01.05.1998. The plaintiff was, however, not so regularized. He along with some others situated similarly filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2260 of 1999 seeking regularization of his services which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.2.1999 directing General Manager of Haryana Roadways to decide the notices served by the writ petitioners within four months and if the writ petitioners were not found eligible for regularization, then a well reasoned order had to be passed and communicated. Accordingly, defendant/respondent No.1 General Manager passed order dated 29.6.1999 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff/appellant for regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.5.1998 'at this stage'. The claim of plaintiff and others situated similarly in this regard was rejected because criminal case for causing accident was pending against the plaintiff. PLAINTIFF was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 11.5.2001. Thereafter plaintiff was regularized w.e.f. 1.6.2001. PLAINTIFF in the suit sought regularization w.e.f. 1.5.1998 and also claimed all consequential benefits along with interest. Defendants justified the regularization of plaintiff w.e.f. 1.6.2001 instead of 1.5.1998 because at the relevant time, the plaintiff was involved in criminal case of causing accident and was, therefore, not entitled to regularization of service in view of relevant instructions. It was thus alleged that on acquittal in the criminal case, the plaintiff was rightly regularized w.e.f. 1.6.2001. Various other objections including objection that the suit is time barred were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2010 decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is undisputed that drivers engaged on contract basis like the plaintiff were regularized w.e.f. 1.5.1998. The plaintiff was, however, not regularized w.e.f. the said date because of pendency of the criminal case regarding accident against him. It is also undisputed that plaintiff was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.5.2001. In view of acquittal, the plaintiff-appellant became entitled to regularization of services w.e.f. 1.5.1998. The said benefit cannot be denied to him on account of pendency of the criminal case in which he was subsequently acquitted.