RSA-391-2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Haryana Ram Narain CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. 2. At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and Ashish, Clerks, contends pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends that respondent expired issueless. His one as on date he is 3. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by chall 2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Date of Decision : 29.04.2025 State of Haryana VERSUS HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and Ashish, Clerks, contends that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends that respondent expired issueless. His one brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and he is survived by one brother and sister, who are Class A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by chall -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-391-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.04.2025 ....Appellant ....Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, was reversed. At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and survived by one brother and sister, who are Class-II heirs. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for declaration for consequential relief of mandatory injunction by challenging his preferred by the State of Haryana against the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 passed by the At the outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from Sombir and that the respondent has expired on 08.09.2011 during the pendency of the present appeal. His wife expired on 25.12.2011. His mother expired on 10.05.2011 and his father expired on 09.12.1995. He further contends brother passed away on 22.09.2010 and A perusal of the record shows that the respondent filed suit for enging his TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 termination order dated 03. Rohtak. The civil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and after following principle from service. 4. The respondent filed appeal against 25.11.1999 before the learned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back with interest @18% 5. Hence t 6. Learned failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the remained absent from Further as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of when Vaid was cross patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking medicines. 5. Per contra judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. 2001 (O&M) termination order dated 03.02.1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and after following principles of natural justice that the respondent was terminated The respondent filed appeal against 99 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back 18%. Hence the present appeal. Learned State counsel contends that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the remained absent from duty from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of when Vaid was cross-examined, though, he admitted that the respondent was his patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. -2- .1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and of natural justice that the respondent was terminated The respondent filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 allowed the appeal by ordering his reinstatement and that he is also entitled to back-wages i.e. arrears of pay along contends that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the respondent from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent from duty due to illness and when he was asked to produce medical record, he could not produce the same and stated that he was under treatment of one Vaid and he admitted that the respondent was his patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking , learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and prays that the present appeal be dismissed. .1994 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), ivil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 holding that the respondent was rightly dismissed since he was absent from duty. And further by holding that it was after proper enquiry and of natural justice that the respondent was terminated judgment and decree dated District Judge, Rohtak, who vide its appeal by ordering his wages i.e. arrears of pay along contends that the learned First Appellate Court respondent from 24.09.1992 to 14.12.1992 without any leave. as per the evidence on record the respondent pleaded that he was absent , he Vaid and he admitted that the respondent was his patient but he denied the factum of admission of the respondent in his hospital as indoor patient and he further stated that the respondent used to visit him for taking , learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and p record of the case. 7. While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following order on 16.05.2002: shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrai recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” 8. In compliance of the above referred to order contends that the respondent was re his salary. He further contends that after his re dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vid 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. 9. Admittedly, the respond against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. He never challenged the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, till the d 10. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the 2001 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and p record of the case. While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following order on 16.05.2002:- “Admitted. The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrai recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” In compliance of the above referred to order contends that the respondent was re-instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid his salary. He further contends that after his re- dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vid 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. Admittedly, the respondent was against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. He never challenged the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, till the date of his death i.e.08. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he shall be paid his salary accordingly but he is restrained from recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other purpose but shall be subject to the decision of the appeal.” In compliance of the above referred to order learned State counsel instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid -instatement in compliance of order dated 16.05.2002 passed by this Court he was again terminated vide order dated 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh and the respondent expired on 08.09.2011. was again terminated on 30.12.2005 against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. He never challenged the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by Transport ate of his death i.e.08.09.2011. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the erused the whole While admitting the present appeal, this Court passed the following The respondent may continue to work as Conductor and he ned from recovering the arrears. As long as he continues to work during the pendency of the appeal, the period shall not be counted for any other counsel instated on 07.06.2002 and was regularly paid instatement in compliance of order e order dated 30.12.2005. He filed departmental appeal against order dated 30.12.2005, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2007 by the Transport Commissioner, again terminated on 30.12.2005 against which he filed the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 06.04.2007. Transport In view of the above, nothing survives in the present appeal, since the respondent was terminated again vide order dated 30.12.2005 and order dated 30.12.2005 attained finality by the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-391-2001 Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, which was never challenged by the respondent. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the present appeal requires no adjudication. 11. Since the prese assistance, therefore, efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, to bring latest information regarding th 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 29, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2001 (O&M) Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, which was never challenged by the respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the present appeal requires no adjudication. ince the present appeal pertains to the year 2001 therefore, before parting with the judgment, efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, to bring latest information regarding the respondent and his legal heirs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes -4- Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the nt appeal pertains to the year 2001 and requires able with the judgment, this Court appreciate the efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, respondent and his legal heirs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh, vide its order dated 06.04.2007, In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, the and requires able this Court appreciate the efforts made by the learned State counsel, Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG Haryana, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document