JOGENDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.15694-C of 2018 Prayer in this application is for fixing an early actual date for disposal of the appeal, which was adjourned sine die because of the arguing counsel for the appellant seeking time in the matter. Notice of the application was issued to the opposite counsel, who had appeared and on the last date of hearing, counsel was called upon to argue the case. The present application, is therefore, allowed and the appeal is taken on board for consideration. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dtd. 24/1/2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendragarh, whereby the suit for declaration preferred by the appellant- plaintiff for reinstatement in service along with all the consequential benefits including salary for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 at Collector's rate along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, amount of expenses as Rs.12,000.00 during the interregnum and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000.00 was partly allowed to the extent of granting the appellant-plaintiff the pay and salary for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 at the Collector's rate along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount became due till the actual payment of the amount with a further direction to the respondents-defendants to make the payment within a period of 30 days, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-plaintiff as well as the respondents-defendants was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dtd. 9/4/2013.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was appointed as Water Carrier (part time) in a Government school initially on 2/1/2003. Thereafter he was transferred by adjustment to another school on 12/2/2004, where he continued as such till 28/2/2006 when his services were terminated. On termination of the appellant-plaintiff, another person was appointed in his place on 1/3/2006. Appellant-plaintiff having completed more than three years of service was entitled to regularisation of services in the light of the Haryana Government Policy of the year 2003, which entitled an employee, who has completed more than three years of service for regularisation thereof. He, therefore, contends that the Courts below have wrongly proceeded to dismiss the suit of the appellant-plaintiff with regard to the said relief. He, thus, contends that the judgments and decree as passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff decreed in toto.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the services of the appellant-plaintiff were terminated as per the terms of contract. He contends that the services of the appellant could not be regularised in the light of the fact that there was no regular sanctioned post, against which he could be so regularised and in the absence of any sanctioned post, no relief could have been granted to the appellant-plaintiff as prayed for.