SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 22, 2013 I passed the following order after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State at length:-

(2.) Today, Mr. Sunil Nehra, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana concedes that other than the order dated 28.11.1984 which is a photocopy of document already on the record of the petition there is no other contemproneous record to indicate the quality of entry into service. Mr. Sangwan has filed CM No.12699 of 2013 praying for permission to place on record an affidavit of the petitioner regarding his initial appointment in which it has been stated as follows:-

(3.) During the period of daily wage service as Helper in Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot, the presence of the petitioner was stopped being marked from 13.09.1988 onwards. Non-marking of attendence would mean retrenchment from service. Aggrieved then, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.7196 of 1988 since he was not allowed to join duty. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.10.1988 with a direction to the respondents to consider making the petitioner regular. The petitioner was being treated absent since 20.09.1988. As the order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed in which an order was made to decide the representation. The petitioner's services were terminated on 18.01.1989. His representation against the termination order was rejected on 18.11.1991 by the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. Inspite of the order passed in CWP No.7196 of 1988 and in the wake of non-compliance of the directions and in the absence of decision on the representation, the petitioner filed his second Civil Writ Petition No.11999 of 1991 which was disposed of on 18.11.1991 with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as stated in his representation dated 04.10.1989 and to decide the same in accordance with rules by passing a speaking order within a period of three months. It appears from the record that no action was taken by the respondents even after the second writ petition. This led to filing of CWP No.2733 of 1992. Against the order of termination and appellate order. That petition was disposed of on 27.02.1992 relegating the petitioner to his remedy before the Civil Court as disputed questions of fact were found to have been raised. The petition was accordingly dismissed.