MOOL RAJ RAIZADA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.1136-C/2008 has been filed under Section 151 CPC for listing the case for early hearing, as the applicant/appellant being of the age of 77 years and a senior citizen and thus entitled to early hearing.

(2.) NOTICE of the application was issued to the respondent State of Haryana with the direction that the case would be taken up for regular hearing itself on the appointed date. With the consent of the parties, the application is allowed and the main appeal is taken up for hearing today itself. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.3528/2001.

(3.) SECRETARIAT,Haryana vide their letter dated 13.8.1974 (Ex.D4). Plaintiff was appointed in the Prosecution Department as Assistant vide orders dated 27.8.1974. It is not in dispute that at that time there were no recruitment rules/regulations governing the recruitment of the staff of Director, Prosecution. Plaintiff was promoted vide order dated 23.3.1978 as Deputy Superintendent in the Prosecution Department by the Directorate of Prosecution. It appears that the office of Chief Secretary, vide letter dated 5.7.1978 (Ex.D4/A) raised an objection in respect of his promotion as Deputy Superintendent in the Prosecution Department. In response to that, Department of Prosecution vide letter dated 30.11.1978 (Ex.DW4/C) replied that the parent department had every right to recall the plaintiff at any time. Accordingly, it appears that vide impugned order dated 9.1.1979, plaintiff was recalled in the Haryana Civil SECRETARIAT and he was relieved by the Prosecution Department vide relieving order dated 17.1.1979. It is not in dispute that on such recall plaintiff joined back in the Haryana Civil SECRETARIAT as Assistant on 19.1.1979. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff made a representation to the Chief Secretary,Government of Haryana/ Chief Minister,Haryana vide his letter dated 6.6.1979 (Ex.D7) against his recalling and further praying for cancellation of the reversion/recalling. It is further claimed that repeated reminders to the representation were made and finally vide letter dated 4.7.1988 (Ex.P13) he was informed by the Government that his representation had been filed. Accordingly, he filed the present suit on 2.4.1991 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 9.1.1979, 17.1.1979 and 4.7.1988 with a further prayer that a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to retrospectively put back the plaintiff in the service of Director Prosecution as Deputy Superintendent with all consequential benefits.