IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2000-1993 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Charan Dass (deceased) through his LRs ...Appellant(s)

Versus Punjab State and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Pranav Chamoli, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and is being pursued by his LRs.

2. Challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment dated 14.01.1992 vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that order dated 20.04.1985 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby services of the plaintiff had been dispensed with was illegal and even order dated 12.08.1985 whereby appeal of the plaintiff had been dismissed was also illegal, had been dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 27.05.1993 passed by the First Appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff had also been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S):-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has challenged the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the First Appellate Court mainly on two counts. It is firstly submitted that the order dated 20.04.1985 vide which the services of the present appellant/plaintiff had been dispensed with is an order of dismissal in effect and the same has been passed as a matter of punishment and is stigmatic. It is further submitted that as has been stated in the plaint that prior to the passing of the order dated 20.04.1985, proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff-appellant and charge sheet was issued and thereafter, his services were terminated on 01.08.1984 by the then Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar and that the said order dated 01.08.1984 was challenged by the present appellant/plaintiff and the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 21.11.1984 had set aside the said order dated 01.08.1984 and had reinstated the present appellant/plaintiff. It is submitted that the said proceedings were based on the basis of a complaint made by a Judicial Officer and after the order dated 01.08.1984 had been set aside, a subsequent order was passed by the District and Sessions Judge dated 20.04.1985 on account of the same alleged misconduct of the plaintiff, on which account the authorities had initially instituted the proceedings which had culminated into the passing of the order dated 21.11.1984. It is submitted that although, the impugned order dated 20.04.1985 when seen in isolation shows that it is an innocuous order but when seen in the light of the preceding facts, it is apparent that the impugned order passed is by way of punishment. It is submitted that the plaintiff/appellant although was a temporary employee but he had been working since May, 1977 and thus, the order dated 20.04.1985 relieving the plaintiff without giving any detailed reason is against law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant(s) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. State Fed. Of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. P.V.

Swaminathan reported as 2001(10) SCC 83

4. Second argument raised on behalf of the appellant(s) for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees is that the plaintiff/appellant had been working as an Orderly since May, 1977 and prior to the passing of the order dated 20.04.1985, he had worked for a period of more than seven years and thus, in effect, the plaintiff was a regular employee and his services could not have been dispensed with without giving due opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-appellant and without even issuing any show cause notice to him. It is submitted that even a temporary employee has rights and once he has worked for a period of more than seven years, then, his services could not be terminate