SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of five Regular Second Appeals 2872 to 2875 and 2882 of 1995 in which common questions of law and fact arise and which were heard together. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court whereby the suits of the plaintiff-appellants have been dismissed.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs were employed as Chowkidars/Barbers/Dhobis on daily wages in the Punjab Armed Police in the year 1988 and 1989. The Battalion in which they were working was later converted into the 1st Commando Battalion of the Punjab Police. By an order dated 8.9.1992 the Punjab Government decided to continue with the services of the plaintiffs for one more year. This order of the State Government was adopted by the Director General of Police, Punjab and the same was circulated for necessary information. On 28.1.1993, the Commandant of the Battalion passed an order regularising the services of the plaintiffs with effect from 27.1.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350. It is not in dispute that by then the plaintiffs had two to three years of service to their credit as contingency paid employees. It is also not in dispute that as per letter Exhibit D-2 issued by the Office of the Director General of Police, Punjab the contingency paid staff having 10 years or more of continuous service could be made regular against regular posts. Since the plaintiffs did not have the requisite qualifying service for being regularised the Commandant rectified the error by passing an order isued on 13.9.1993 withdrawing the earlier order dated 28.1.1993. The services of the plaintiffs were de- regularised and the excess payment made to them was sought to be recovered. It is this order that was challenged by the plaintiffs in the trial Court seeking a declaration that the same was illegal and null and void. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was pleaded on their behalf that the mistake committed by the Commandant could be rectified at any time and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration sought for.

(3.) After recording evidence of the parties and on a consideration thereof, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had become employees of the regular establishment and that it was not open to the defendants to de-regularise their services. This finding was reversed by the lower appellate Court and it was held that the services had been wrongly regularised as they had not completed the requisite qualifying service of 10 years. It was further observed that a mistake committed by the Commandant of the Battalion could be rectified at any time and that it was not necessary to issue any notice to the plaintiffs-appellants. The appeal was consequently allowed, decree of the trial court set aside and the suit dismissed. Hence the present appeals.