CM-1574-C-2025 in/and : RSA-260 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CM-1574-C-2025 in/and RSA-260 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2025 TILAK RAJ ...... Appellant VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI *** Present :- Mr. Uday Agnihotri, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-1574-C-2025 The present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 24.05.2024 (Anexure A-1) by which the RSA was disposed of having been not pressed and the same may kindly be decided on merits. Notice of the application. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Additional AG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and raises no objection. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the order dated 24.05.2024 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number and status and on the asking of the learned counsel for the appellant, the main case is taken on board today itself. RIMPAL RANI 2025.02.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1574-C-2025 in/and : RSA-260 of 1994 RSA-260 of 1994 1. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the orders passed by the trial Court dated 08.12.1992, by which, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, is incorrect as all the relevant factors which must have been appreciated have not been taken into account by trial Court while denying the relief claimed and even the order dated 18.08.1993 passed by the Appellate Court in an appeal preferred against order dated 08.12.1992, also does not consider all the relevant facts and therefore, it is the prayer of the appellant that the order passed by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court dated 08.12.1992 and 18.08.1993 respectively may kindly be set aside and the suit filed by the appellant may kindly be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed in the Adult Education Department on 21.06.1986 on a consolidated salary of Rs.200/-. The appellant worked for a while but in July 1987, his services were terminated owing to his unsatisfactory work and him remaining absent from his duty which order has wrongly been passed by the respondent-department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as there was no misconduct on the part of the appellant, therefore, the respondents were under the obligation to grant the appellant continuance in service from which he was dismissed, which benefit when claimed from the trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court has also wrongly been denied and therefore, the appellant be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. RIMPAL RANI 2025.02.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1574-C-2025 in/and : RSA-260 of 1994 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the services of the appellant were terminated on 27.04.1987 and despite the said termination, against which the appellant felt aggrieved, yet the challenge against the said termination was not raised within limitation provided and even otherwise, by the time, the suit was filed, even the Adult Education Programme under which the appellant was appointed, had already come to an end and therefore, the prayer of the appellant that he should be treated in service from 1987 till 1990, has rightly been adjudicated by the trial Court as well as by the Lower Appellate Court so as to deny the benefit claimed hence, the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 6. It is worthwhile to notice that the order of termination is dated 27.04.1987 whereas the suit to claim relief against the said termination was filed in the year 1991 which clearly shows that qua the order of termination, the suit had already become barred by limitation on the day when the same was instituted. It is very probable that the appellant, in order to overcome the said bar created by law of limitation raised his prayer in such manner that the appellant is deemed to be in continuance service starting from 27.04.1987. Unless and until, the order of termination is challenged, the relief required by the appellant could not have been granted and in case the order dated 27.04.1987 is challenged, then the suit was barred by limitation as the limitation had already expired by the time the suit was filed in the year 1991. RIMPAL RANI 2025.02.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-1574-C-2025 in/and : RSA-260 of 1994 7. Even otherwise, by the time the suit was filed, the Adult Education Programme under which the appellant was appointed temporarily on the consolidated salary had also come to an end and the said programme was not in existence so therefore, the benefit claimed by the appellant has rightly not been extended to the appellant by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court. 8. Even otherwise, in the RSA, the perversity in the order are to be shown and in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to how the order passed by the trial Court or even lower Appellate Court is perverse to the evidence or the facts on record. The appellant cannot be allowed to re-argue the case afresh in the appeal so as to convince this Court to record a finding other than the one which have been recorded by the Courts below. 9. Keeping in view the above, no ground for any interference is made out by this Court and the present appeal is dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 18.02.2025 Rimpal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No RIMPAL RANI 2025.02.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document