NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5607 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7127 of 2006]

Haryana Rajya Sainik Board-cum- Defence & Security Relief Fund & Member Management Committee       ..... Appellant

Versus

Mohan Lal & Anr.                   .....       Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

1

3. This  appeal  arises  out  of  judgment  and  order  dated

26.04.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  CWP  No.

563/2003 and order dated 27.09.2005 in Review Application

No.  236/2005.   By  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court

allowed the writ petition of Mohan Lal - the respondent herein

and  directed  the  appellant  to  regularise  his  services  and

granted him all benefits as a regular employee.   The review

petition filed  by the  appellant-Haryana Rajya Sainik  Board-

cum-Defence & Security Relief Fund & Member Management

Committee against the order of the High Court in the said writ

petition was dismissed.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant-

Haryana  Rajya  Sainik  Board-cum-Defence  & Security  Relief

Fund & Member Management Committee (hereinafter referred

to  as  “the  Committee”)  is  a  social  welfare  organization

registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act,

1860.  The aim, object and purpose of the Committee are to

look  after  the  welfare  of  war widows,  their  dependents,  ex-

servicemen,  disabled  armed  officials,  their  dependents  and

2

dependents of the serving officials.  The appellant-Committee

does not receive any grant from the Central Government.   It

receives  its  finance  from  the  Defence  Security  Relief  Fund

which had been  raised  in the  years  1965  and 1972 out  of

public  donations  during  declaration  of  hostilities  between

India  and  Pakistan.   The  grant-in-aid  is  being  provided  by

Haryana  Government  only  to  augment  the  Defence  and

Security Relief Fund [for short ‘DSR Fund’].   

5. The  appellant-Committee  on  01.10.1991  appointed

Mohan  Lal–respondent  as  Mali  on  daily  wage.   As  per  the

terms and conditions of  the letter  of  engagement  placed on

record  of  this  appeal,  the  services  of  the  respondent  were

liable to be terminated at any point of time.  The services of

the respondent were terminated with effect from 27.02.1993

being temporary in nature.   

6. The respondent  claimed reference under  the Industrial

Disputes Act,  1947 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.D.  Act’]

alleging  that  his  services  were  terminated  without  following

the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.  The Haryana

3

Government  vide  Notification  No.  12307  dated  22.01.1994

made the following reference to the Labour Court:-

“Whether  the  termination  of  services  of Shri Mohan Lal is valid and justified?  If not so, to what relief is he entitled?”

7. The  Additional  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, by Award dated 02.02.1999 in

Reference No. 10/1994 held the termination of the services of

the  respondent  illegal  and  unjustified  and  accordingly,

directed  his  reinstatement  with  continuity  in  service.

However, the claim with regard to back wages was given up by

the respondent,  therefore,  he was not held entitled  to back

wages.   

8. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed writ petition in the

year  2003  [W.P.  No.563/2003]  before  the  High  Court  of

Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  praying  for  issue  of

mandamus directing the appellant-Committee to regularise his

services.  The Division Bench of the High Court, on the basis

of Policy Instructions dated 07.03.1996 issued by the State of

Haryana  with  regard  to  regularizing  the  work

4

charged/casual/daily-rated employees of the departments of

the State Government, directed the appellant-Committee – “to

regularize the services of respondent and, accordingly, grant

him other  benefits  as  a  regular  employee”.   The  appellant-

Committee being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order

of the Division Bench filed a review application before the High

Court, which came to be dismissed on September 27, 2005.

Hence, the appellant-Committee has filed this appeal by way

of  special  leave  petition  challenging  the  correctness  and

validity of the orders of the High Court.

9. We have heard Mr. Alok Sangwan, learned counsel  for

the  appellant-Committee  and  Mr.  Prem  Malhotra,  learned

counsel  for  the  respondent  –  Mohan  Lal,  and  with  their

assistance  perused  orders  of  the  High  Court  and  other

material on record.   

10.   The defence of the appellant-Committee in its counter

affidavit filed before the High Court in opposition to the writ

petition was that the appellant-Committee was registered as a

Society in the backdrop of the following eventualities:-

5

“In  1965,  large  scale  incursion  into Jammu  and  Kashmir  by  subversion elements  from  Pakistan  flared  into declaration of hostilities between India and Pakistan.   The  patriotic  fervour  of  our people  rose  to  the  occasion  and  they offered  large  quantities  of  cash  and valuables.   In  the  Punjab  (which  then included  Haryana)  the  general  response was  overwhelming.   A  fund,  known  as ‘Punjab  Defence  and  Security  Fund’  was instituted  to  account  for  this  donation. The initial target was set at Rs. 50 lakhs, but  by  15.11.1966,  the  collection  by  the people approximated Rs. 3.75 crores.   

In,  1966,  the  composite  Punjab  was  re- organised  into  the  new  states  of  Punjab and Haryana.  Haryana’s share of the fund was transferred to it for the benefits of war widows  and  ex-servicemen  belonging  to Haryana  and  their  families.   The transferred fund came to be known as the Haryana Defence and Security Relief Fund now  DSR  Fund  in  short.   Later  on  the contribution of this Fund was made by the people  of  Haryana during 1971 war.   To manage the DSR Fund, a Committee was set up.”

11.   It was the specific and categorical case of the appellant-

Committee  that  the  DSR  Fund  is  neither  a  Government

Department nor a statutory body or an instrumentality of the

State.  It is a Committee which comprises the Chief Minister of

6

the State as its Chairman and other unspecified number of

officials and non-officials  as its  Members.   Its  strength and

composition continues to be  ad hoc from the beginning.  The

DSR  Fund  gets  aid  from  the  Haryana  Government  only  to

augment the DSR Fund.  Haryana Defence and Security Relief

Fund  Committee  has  been  registered  under  the  Societies

Registration Act, 1860.

12. The appointment of the respondent as ‘Mali’  (Gardener)

by  the  Assistant  Manager,  Sainik  Pariwar  Bhawan,

Chhachhrauli,  with  effect  from 01.10.1991  (FN)  as  per  the

daily  wage  fixed  by  the  Deputy  Commissioner  is  not  in

dispute.  The services of the respondent were terminated on

27.02.1993 in terms of  the  engagement  letter.   Against  the

termination  order,  the  respondent  raised  the  industrial

dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the State of

Haryana  and  finally  the  Labour  Court,  as  stated  above,

directed the appellant-Committee to reinstate the respondent

with  continuity  in  service  without  back-wages.   Before  the

High Court,  it  was the categorical  defence  of the appellant-

Committee that the respondent was appointed as  Mali  for a

7

temporary  period  at  the  rate  fixed  by  the  Deputy

Commissioner,  Yamuna  Nagar.   The  respondent,  in

compliance  to  the  Award  of  the  Labour  Court,  has  been

reinstated by the appellant-Committee.  It was also contended

that the appellant-Committee has not received any grant from

the Central Government or the State Government of Haryana,

but it receives its finances from the DSR Fund which has been

raised out of public donations received in the wake of 1965

and 1972 wars with Pakistan.  However,  the grant-in-aid is

being provided by Haryana Government only to augment the

DSR Fund which was set up for the welfare of ex-servicemen

and their dependents, war widows, soldiers’ widows and their

dependents,  etc.  etc.   The  appellant-Committee  also  stated

that  none  of  the  daily  wagers  working  with  the  Committee

have been regularized by the appellant-Committee against the

vacancy  which  is  reserved  only  for  ex-servicemen  and  war

widows,  etc.   It  was also submitted that no other employee

was selected or engaged in place of the respondent after the

Award of the Labour Court which was complied with by the

appellant-Committee.   

8

13.   In the factual situation of the case and legal proposition

governing  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  services  of  the

respondent,  in  our considered  opinion,  the  High Court  has

misapplied the Policy Decision/Instructions dated 07.03.1996

issued  by  the  Government  of  Haryana  with  regard  to  the

regularization  of  work-charged  /  daily  wage  /  daily-rated

employees employed by the various Departments of the State

to the claim of the respondent.   We have gone through the

said Policy decision which is placed on record of this case as

Annexure-P3.  The Policy decision reveals that there are three

categories  of  employees,  namely,  work-charged  employees,

casual daily wage employees and daily-rated employees (class-

III)  of the State Government who are covered under the said

Policy decision.  The policy decision provides that the casual

daily-rated employees, who have completed five years service

on 31st January, 1996, shall be regularized provided they have

worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and

the break in service in any year is not more than one month at

the  time.   A  further  condition  stipulated  was  that  such

employees who have worked on different posts having different

9

designations in the same Department shall also be regularized

if they fulfill their conditions.  On regularization, they shall be

put in the time-scale of pay applicable to the lowest Group ‘D’

cadre  in the  Government  and they  would  be  entitled  to  all

other allowances and benefits available to regular Government

Servants of the corresponding grade.   

14.   We are not in a position to accept the finding of the

learned  Judges  of  the  High  Court  that  the  services  of  the

respondent  are  governed  by  the  said  Policy  decision  of  the

State  of  Haryana  in  the  matter  of  regularization.   The

respondent was not an employee of the State of Haryana in

Group  ‘C’  or  Group  ‘D’  posts  nor  was  he  engaged  in  any

Department or other authority of the State on daily wage by

the  competent  authority  of  the  State  Government  or  the

authority,  as  the  case  may  be.   Indisputably,  he  was

appointed by the appellant-Committee as  Mali  on daily wage

and not in the cadre of ex-servicemen for which the vacancy is

reserved  in  terms  of  the  Sainik  Parivar  Bhawan’s  Haryana

Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1999.  Thus, the High Court

gravely erred by holding that the Policy decision of the State of

10

Haryana dated 07.03.1996 will be ipso facto applicable to the

employees  of  the  appellant-Committee  without  proving  that

the same has been adopted by the appellant-Committee and

made applicable to its employees.  The appellant-Committee

has framed its own Service Rules called ‘The Sainik Parivar

Bhawan’s Haryana Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1999’, for

regulating  the  recruitment  and  conditions  of  service  of  the

persons  appointed  to  Sainik  Parivar  Bhawan’s  Haryana.

Details  of  posts  authorized  in  Saink  Parivar  Defence

Organisation  prescribing  qualifications/experience  required

and pay equalency are mentioned in Appendix ‘A’ of the said

Rules.   The post of Peon-cum-Mali is shown at Serial No. 22

of Appendix ‘A’ for which the essential qualification is 5th class

with two years experience of gardening.  The footnote provides

that certain posts, including the post of Peons and Peon-cum-

Mali, are reserved for ex-servicemen/war widows and widows

only.   In  the  teeth  of  the  separate  service  rules  of  the

appellant-Committee  framed  for  governing  the  service

conditions of its employees, the High Court was not justified

in  applying  the  Policy  decision/Instruction  of  1996  of  the

11

State  Government  to the  employees  of  the appellant,  which

undoubtedly  is  an  independent  body  registered  under  the

Societies  Act  exclusively  for  the  welfare  of  the  widows  and

their  dependents  (males/females)  and  dependents  of  ex-

servicemen  and  serving  Armed  Forces  personnel,  etc.  of

Haryana.

15.   In the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove,

the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  directing  the  appellant-

Committee  “to regularize the services of the respondent and,

accordingly, grant him all other benefits of regular employee”

is unjustified and unsustainable both on facts and in law and

the  same  deserves  to  be  set  aside  on  this  short  ground

without entering upon the merits of other issues involved in

regard to the power of the High Court to issue  mandamus  in

mandatory  form  directing  regularization  of  the  respondent

against  the  service  rules  of  the  appellant-Committee  and

granting him all benefits of a regular employee.

16.   In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment

and order dated 26.04.2005 of the Division Bench passed in

CWP No.  563/2003  and order  dated 27.09.2005 dismissing

12

the Review Application No. 236/2005 in the said writ petition,

are  quashed  and  set  aside.   The  writ  petition  filed  by  the

respondent would stand dismissed.  The appeal is accordingly

allowed.   

17.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties

are left to bear their own costs.

........................................J.                                                 (R. V. Raveendran)

........................................J.                                                (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

New Delhi, September 11, 2008.

13