CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 1
C.R. No. 3410 of 2009
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
Decided on 04.6.2009
Sanatan Dharam Education Board, Narnaul -- Petitioner
vs
Daya Nand and another -- Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat,Advocate, for the petitioner
Rakesh Kumar, Jain, J: (Oral)
CM No.13990-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Civil Revision No.3410 of 2009
This revision is directed against the order dated 27.4.2009
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),Narnaul.
The petitioner filed a suit for mandatory and permanent
injunction alleging that he was employed by the respondents as a Clerk in
the non-teaching staff against a non-sanctioned post on 31.7.1999 on
consolidated pay on temporary basis. He prayed for his regular
employment against a sanctioned post on the retirement of an employee on
30.11.2002, who was working against a sanctioned post.
In the written statement, it was averred by the defendants/petitioner
CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 2
C.R. No. 3410 of 2009
the plaintiff/respondent got the job due to the influence of his brother
who was working as Steno with S.D.M.Narnaul, and since his appointment
was against due procedure, therefore, his services were terminated on
16.4.2003 and a cheque of Rs. 467/- towards salary was given to him
which was not received by the plaintiff and was received back by the
defendant/petitioners on 24.4.2003, however, it was sent by registered post
on the same date.
Evidence of the parties was closed on 19.10.2004 and
20.5.2005 respectively and since 29.8.2005, the case has been listed for
rebuttal evidence and arguments and is continued for the same purpose
for the last 3 and ½ years because the plaintiff was taking dates. Further
the case of the petitioner is that suddenly the plaintiff filed an application
under Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ( for short
‘CPC’) for leading additional evidence of an enquiry report dated
24.12.2008 which was conducted by the Section Officer of District
Education Office, Narnaul in the order of termination passed on 16.4.2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned
Court below has allowed the application for additional evidence only on the
ground that enquiry report dated 29.12.2008 has come into existence after
the plaintiff had closed his evidence on 19.4.2005, although, it is argued
that the said report is managed and manufactured by the plaintiff.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view
that at this stage, only thing which is to be seen by the Court below is as to
whether the report dated 29.12.2008 deserves to be taken on record through
the additional evidence or not. The learned Court below has found that
the dispute is with regard to termination order dated 16.4.2003 which has
CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 3
C.R. No. 3410 of 2009
been enquired into by the Education Office, Narnaul and a report thereto
has been submitted by the Section Officer on 24.12.2008. Therefore, the
report in my view is relevant. The question as to whether the report is
managed or is not in accordance with the law, that shall be seen by the
learned Court below at the time of adjudicating the lis between the parties
finally.
With these observations, I do not find any merit in the present
petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
June 04,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
RR Judge
Refer to Reporter-- Yes