STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.20 10 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff has sought declaration that he was posted' as a sweeper vide appointment letter dated 16.01.1990, therefore, he could be deputed only to work as a sweeper and the order dated 05.07.2007 passed by defendant-appellant No. 2 asking the plaintiff to perform the duties of 'Chowkidar' in addition to his own duties of Sweeper, is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred as the defendants') be restrained from directing the plaintiff to perform the duties of 'Chowkidar' in addition to his own duties of Sweeper.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia with the averments that the plaintiff was initially appointed as Sweeper vide order dated 16.01.1990, but it was clearly mentioned in the said order that he would also work as 'Chowkidar' in addition to his duties as Sweeper. The plaintiff is not forced to work for 24 hours. It was further submitted that vide order dated 05.07.2007, the plaintiff was directed to work as per his initial appointment order, which contains a clause that he would also perform the duties of 'Chowkidar', as there is no post of 'Chowkidar' in the school. It was also averred that the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the then Head Mistress of the school, was also procured by the plaintiff, as she sought her voluntary retirement on 04.07.2006. Hence, this order is not binding on the defendants and it also does not supersede the initial appointment letter. It was also averred that the plaintiff having challenged this order after 18 years of his appointment, the suit is time barred.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on 19.11.2007:-