Disposed¶32

State of Haryana v. Ram Narain and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2025RSA/391/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Haryana v. Ram Narain; RSA-391-2001 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Sudeepti Sharma, J.; decision 29.04.2025; termination of conductor; reinstatement; back-wages with 18% interest; decree dated 12.10.2000 Additional District Judge Rohtak; suit dismissed 25.11.1999 absence from duty; interim order 16.05.2002; fresh termination 30.12.2005; departmental appeal rejected 06.04.2007 Transport Commissioner Haryana; death of sole respondent 08.09.2011; nothing survives; appeal requires no adjudication; disposed without merit adjudication; speaking; reportable.

What did the court decide?

Nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005. ¶27

State of Haryana Vs Ram Narain and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit and granting reinstatement with back-wages at 18% interest, called for interference in this regular second appeal preferred by the State of Haryana. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005.

¶27

Key takeaways

The termination order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality, as the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh's order dated 06.04.2007 rejecting the respondent's departmental appeal was never challenged by him until his death on 08.09.2011.ratio¶27
In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above, the present appeal requires no adjudication.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sudeepti Sharma, J., oral, 29.04.2025), RSA-391-2001 (O&M): State of Haryana appealed against the Additional District Judge, Rohtak's decree dated 12.10.2000, which reversed the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak's decree dated 25.11.1999 dismissing respondent Ram Narain's suit challenging his termination order dated 03.02.1994, and ordered reinstatement with back-wages carrying interest @ 18%. On admission (16.05.2002), the Court permitted the respondent to work as Conductor with salary, restraining recovery of arrears; he was re-instated on 07.06.2002 but again terminated vide order dated 30.12.2005, whose departmental appeal was rejected on 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh — an order never challenged till the respondent's death on 08.09.2011 (he died issueless; Class-II heirs survive). Holding that the 2005 termination had attained finality and nothing survived in the appeal, the Court held the appeal required no adjudication and disposed it of, along with pending applications. Speaking judgment; reportable.

¶1

RSA-391-2001 (O&M) - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

-.-

¶4

RSA-391-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.04.2025

State of Haryan a

....Appellant

VERSUS

Ram Narain ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶10

Present: M r . Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Har y ana fo r the appellant.

¶11

M r . Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for t h e respondent.

¶12

-.-

¶13

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral).

¶14

Th e present appeal is preferred b y the State of Haryana against the judgment and d ecree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Dis t rict Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and dec r ee dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was r eversed. 2. At the outset, learned State couns e l, on instructions from Sombir and Ashish, Clerks, contends that the respondent h a s expired on 08.09.2011 during the pendency of t h e present appeal. His wife ex p ired on 25.12.2011. His mo t her expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired o n 09.12.1995. He further contends that respondent expired issueless. His one brot h er passed away on 22.09.2010 and as on date he is survived by one brother and sis t er, who are Class-II heirs.

¶15

A perusal of the record shows t hat the respondent filed suit for TRIPTI SAINIdeclaration for consequential relief of manda t ory injunction by challenging his 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RSA-391-2001 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

termination order dated 03.02.1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divisi o n), Rohtak. The c i vil suit filed by the responden t was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respo n dent was rightly dismissed sinc e he was absent fro m duty. And further by holding t hat it was after proper enquiry and after following principles of natural justice t h at the respondent was termin a ted from service.

¶18

Th e respondent filed appeal agai n st the judgment and decree d a ted 25.11.1999 be fo re the learned Additional Di s trict Judge, Rohtak, who vide its judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed the appeal by ordering his reinstatement a n d that he is also entitled to b a ck-wages i.e. arrears of pay al o ng with interest @ 1 8%.

¶19

He n ce the present appeal.

¶20

Le a rned State counsel contends th a t the learned First Appellate C o urt failed to appr e ciate the evidence on record and the fact that the respon d ent remained abse n t from duty from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any le a ve. Further as per t he evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was ab s ent from duty due to illness and when he was as k ed to produce medical record , he could not prod u ce the same and stated that he w as under treatment of one Vaid and when Vaid was cross-examined, though, he a d mitted that the respondent was his patient but he d enied the factum of admission o f the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient an d he further stated that the res p ondent used to visit him for ta k ing medicines.

¶21

Pe r contra , learned counsel for th e respondent argues on the line s of judgment and d ecree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Dis t rict TRIPTI SAINIJudge, Rohtak a nd prays that the present appeal be dismissed. 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA-391-2001 (O&M) - 3-

¶23

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of the ca s e.

¶24

W h ile admitting the present appe a l, this Court passed the follo w ing order on 16.05. 2 002:-

¶25

“ Admitted.

¶26

The respondent may conti n ue to work as Conductor an d he sh a ll be paid his salary accor d ingly but he is restrained f r om re c overing the arrears. As long a s he continues to work during the pe n dency of the appeal, the perio d shall not be counted for any o t her pu r pose but shall be subject to the d ecision of the appeal.” 8. In compliance of the above refer r ed to order learned State cou n sel contends that t h e respondent was re-instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly p aid his salary. He f urther contends that after his re - instatement in compliance of o r der dated 16.05.20 0 2 passed by this Court he was again terminated vide order d a ted 30.12.2005. H e filed departmental appeal aga i nst order dated 30.12.2005, w h ich was rejected v ide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissio n er, Haryana, Chan d igarh and the respondent expire d on 08.09.2011.

¶27

A d mittedly, the respondent was again terminated on 30.12.2 0 05 against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2 0 07. He never ch a llenged the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Trans p ort Commissioner H aryana, Chandigarh, till the da t e of his death i.e.08.09.2011. 10. In v iew of the above, nothing surv i ves in the present appeal, since the respondent wa s terminated again vide order d ated 30.12.2005 and order d a ted 30.12.2005 att a ined finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

RSA-391-2001 (O&M) - 4-

¶30

Transport Com m issioner Haryana, Chandigar h , vide its order dated 06.04.2 0 07, which was nev e r challenged by the respondent. 10. In view of the facts and circu m stances as referred to above, the present appeal r equires no adjudication.

¶31

Si n ce the present appeal pertains t o the year 2001 and requires a ble assistance, ther e fore, before parting with the j u dgment, this Court appreciate the efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. S hivendra Swaroop, DAG Hary a na, to bring latest i n formation regarding the respon d ent and his legal heirs.

¶32

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed of.

¶33

April 29, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE

¶34

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana v. Ram Narain and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Ram Narain and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Rana and Others Vs Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors.

Neelam Sahota Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vicky @ Kamaljeet Vs Baldeep Singh

Ashfak Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajiv Goel Vs State of Punjab and Others