MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ROHTAK Vs. CHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RSA No.165 of 2011 titled as Municipal Council, Rohtak vs. Chattar Singh and another and RSA No.1242 of 2011 titled as Chattar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, as both these appeals have arisen out of one suit i.e. Civil Suit No.208/1/2007 decided on 23.03.2010 and the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2010 of the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts emerging out from the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are that the plaintiff was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1991. However, in the record of defendant -Municipal Council, Rohtak, he was wrongly shown to have been appointed in the year 1992. His services were terminated on 31.8.1994. However, the Labour Court, Rohtak, vide judgment dated 26.8.1997 ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service. He was allowed to join on the same post on 22.11.1997. The plaintiff vide letter dated 7.3.1996 of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana issued instructions to the effect that the employees who have completed five years of service on 31.1.1996 were to be regularized. Further, a letter dated 18.03.1996 was issued whereby the condition of five years in service was reduced to three years for regularization of such employees. The plaintiff requested the competent authorities for regularization of his service w.e.f. 31.01.1996 as he was entitled to his consequential benefits and regularization from the said date. It was further averred that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff. Since the defendants refused to redress the grievance of the plaintiff, the instant suit was filed praying therein grant of decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to regularization in service w.e.f. 31.1.1996 along with consequential benefits. Mandatory injunction was also sought directing the defendant -respondents to make the necessary entries of regularization in the service book of the plaintiff.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 24.08.2010. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: -