LPA-1458-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1458-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.07.2025 Sumer Singh ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) CM-3573-LPA-2025 Delay of 198 days in filing the accompanying appeal has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the application is allowed, and the delay of 198 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. LPA-1458-2025 1. This is an intra-court appeal, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 26.09.2024, rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition, filed by the appellant- petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the facts of the case, according to which, the appellant was substantively appointed as Village Chowkidar, for which, he was paid salary by the Revenue Department. However, he was entrusted with the additional charge to look after the security of EDUSAT equipment installed in GPS Nirhan, Sonipat, and an honararium of Rs.1,000/- per month, was being paid to him, in this regard. In this backdrop, the learned Single Judge has AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA-1458-2025 (O&M) -2- rejected the claim of the appellant-petitioner, for arrears of wages to the tune of Rs.1,43,824/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal. 4. In support of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, he has placed reliance upon a decision dated 20.02.2019, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1273-2018 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Devender), and other connected matters. 4. We have gone through the judgment in Devender (supra), which arose out of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apparently, the facts of the abovesaid case are entirely distinct from the case at hand, inasmuch as, the appellants therein were not substantively appointed as Village Chowkidar, and accordingly, were not paid salary by the Revenue Department. The appellant herein, as demonstrated above, was substantively appointed as Village Chowkidar, and was also paid wages, apart from the honorarium for the additional work. 5. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 29.07.2025 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.01 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document