BHAGAT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Bhagat Ram was appointed as Class-IV employee and joined as Ward Servant in General Hospital, Chandigarh in 1962. He was promoted as Laboratory Assistant Grade-II and subsequently in the year 1967 he was promoted as Laboratory Assistant Grade-I.

(2.) At the time of bifurcation of the States, he was serving in General Hospital, Union Territory, Chandigarh. As per the case of the petitioner, he was allocated to the State of Haryana but that order was never communicated to him and he continued to serve in General Hospital, U.T., Chandigarh. In the year 1976. he went on sick leave and reported back for duty in January, 1977. However, he was not allowed to join by the Joint Director, Health Services, U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner was asked to obtain a no objection certificate from Health Department of Haryana as his services had already been allocated to the State of Haryana. Petitioner made a representation to the Chief Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh but of no avail. Petitioner thereafter on 29.10.1979 filed a suit for declaration claiming that he continues to be the employee of the Union Territory, Chandigarh and the action of the respondent in not allowing him to join duty is illegal and arbitrary. Before his suit could be decided, his services were terminated by the State of Haryana oh 5.12.1980. Petitioner instead of amending his suit which he had filed on 29.10.1979, filed another suit on 1.3.1983 challenging the order of dismissal passed by the State of Haryana. His first suit was decreed by Shri S.S.Chahal, Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh on 10.6.1983. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree before the first appellate Court. Before appeal filed by the defendants could be decided, the second suit was decreed vide judgment dated 23.3.1985 passed by Shri P.C. Gupta, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, who held that State of Haryana was not competent to pass such an order because the petitioner was the employee of Union Territory, Chandigarh. For coming to this conclusion, learned Sub Judge placed reliance on the judgment of Shri S.S. Chahal, Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, passed in the first suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed to the extent that the plaintiff continued to be the employee of Union Territory, Chandigarh and is entitled to be reinstated in service with all benefits of service. No appeal was filed against this decree by any of the defendants. On 10.9.1985, appeal in the first suit was accepted and the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed meaning thereby that the necessary relief of declaration that he continues to be the employee of Union Territory was denied. Petitioner preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 3242 of 1986 in this Court and the same was dismissed on 14.5.1986. Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed on 1.9.1987.

(3.) Petitioner filed an execution application for executing the decree in the second suit which was decided by Shri B.C. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. Objections were preferred by the Union Territory as well as by the State of Haryana to the effect that the decree is not executable because right upto the apex Court, it has been held that the petitioner is not the employee of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Executing Court vide the impugned order, accepted the objection petition and dismissed the execution application. However, petitioner was advised to seek any other remedy available to him for the enforcement of his right from the Haryana Government Petitioner instead of approaching the State Government of Haryana for his reinstatement, challenged the order of the Executing Court by way of this civil revision.