Jagannath v. Hy State and Other

IN T

Jagannath State of Haryana

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The passed by the le filed by the resp by the Civil Jud

2.

The appellant filed injunction brou plaintiff be decl wages. It was f Morter Mate b

24.02.1971 at Sh is matriculate. F

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS a and Others

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Parbeen Dhawal, Advocate, an r. Ashish Arora, Advocate, for th r. Harish Nain, AAG Haryana. -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is filed again earned Additional District Judge pondent against the judgment an dge (Junior Division), Kurukshetr e brief facts stated in Civil Su a suit for declaration with c ught by the plaintiff against th lared senior to defendant Nos. further averred that he was app by the defendants on 23.02.1 hahabad Markanda, Tehsil Than Further that, his work and condu

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4577-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 15.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA nd he appellant. nst the judgment dated 16.08.20 e, Kurukshetra, whereby the app nd decree dated 03.10.1997 pas ra, was allowed. uit No.3022 of 1992 are that consequential relief of mandat e defendants with the prayer t 6 to 9 and he be given other b pointed as work charge (Stacki 971 and he joined the duty nesar, District Kurukshetra. Plain uct was found satisfactory. No

peal ssed tory ack ing) on ntiff

entry was mad

13.07.1972 to 3 and he was allow Supervisor on namely Ajmer S work since 12.0 They were prom promoted in 19 services were r seniority list an

01.03.1973. He but of no use.

3.

Up appeared and s maintainable. D the plaintiff-app were promoted,

4.

On learned Trial Co 1) inju 2) pra 3) 4)

de in his A.C.R., however, he

1.12.1973. Later on this period wed to work from 01.01.1974 on

01.07.1979 and now working Singh, Lal Singh, Karnail Singh

07.1972 and they were recalled b moted as work supervisors in 19

¶974Plaintiff made several re regularised on 03.07.1980. D nd juniors to plaintiff are wo requested the defendant-depart on notice defendant-respondent stated in the reply that the sui Defendant-respondent Nos. 6 to pellant remained silent for a perio therefore, he could not file a sui n the pleadings of the parties, fo ourt:- Whether the plaintiff is en unction as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is enti ayed for? OPP Whether the suit is time barre Whether the suit is bad for w

e was not allowed to work fr was treated to be leave without p nwards. He was promoted as w as such. Defendants No. 6 to and Babu were also not allowed by the defendants in the year 19

¶975Karnail Singh and Babu w presentations but to no avail. Defendants have not prepared orking as Work Supervisor si tment to promote him accordin t Nos. 1 to 5 (official responden it of the plaintiff-appellant is 9 (private respondents) stated t od of 15-20 years, when his juni it at a belated stage. ollowing issues were framed by ntitled to the relief of mandat itled to the relief of declaration ed? OPD want of notice u/s 80 of CPC? OP

rom pay work o 9, d to

¶973were His any nce ngly nts) iors tory n as

5) 6) 7) OP 8)

5.

The judgment and d filed an appeal learned first A

16.08.2001. Hen

6.

Lea first appellate C Trial Court has while decreeing plaintiff/appella seniority and pro

8.

Per Appellate Court ground that the limitation, there support of his c Court in the cas [2010 AIR (Sup "29 eme

Whether the suit is not maint Whether the present suit is li Whether the suit is bad for PD Relief. e civil suit filed by the plai decree dated 03.10.1997. The against the said judgment and Appellate Court allowed the nce the present appeal. arned counsel for the plaintiff-a Court while reversing the well failed to appreciate the reason g the suit of the plaintiff-appell ant despite was senior to the p omotion was wrongly denied to r contra, learned State counse t has rightly allowed the appea suit filed by the plaintiff-appell efore, the present appeal be d contention, he has relied upon se of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra preme Court) 706]. Para 29 of th

¶9Thus, in view of the above, erges is that once the seniority

tainable? OPD able to be stayed u/s 10 CPC? O r non-joinder or necessary parti intiff-appellant was allowed v defendant-respondent Nos. 1 t d decree dated 03.10.1997 and appeal vide its judgment da appellant contends that the learn reasoned judgment of the learn ns given by the learned trial Co lant. He further contends that private respondents and benefit the appellant. el contends that the learned f al filed by the respondents on lant in the year 1992 was barred dismissed on the same ground. the judgment of Hon'ble Supre a & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & O he same is reproduced as under:- , the settled legal proposition t y had been fixed and it remains

OPD ies? vide o 5 ated ned ned ourt t of first d by In eme Ors -

exis in c for yea som exp by f

9.

I h record of this ca

10.

The learned Trial Co " 19 ser dep dep firs pla to 9

¶20sile

stence for a reasonable period, t be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal crystal clear words that a senior 3 to 4 years unchallenged, sh ars is a reasonable period for ch meone agitates the issue of seni plain the delay and laches in ap furnishing satisfactory explanati have heard learned counsel for ase. e relevant portion of the judgme ourt is as under:-

¶9Learned counsel that plaint e services on 24.02.1971. Defen rvice on 13.5.1971. Defendan partment on 23.4.1971 and def e department on 18.5.1971 and partment on 05.11.1971. He sub e seniority except length of servi st of all, therefore, he is senior aintiff was never punished, no ad erefore, plaintiff is entitled to be

9.

Learned Govt. Pleade ent for a period around 20 years

any challenge to the same sho l (supra), this Court has laid do rity list which remains in existe hould not be disturbed. Thus, hallenging the seniority and in c ority beyond this period, he has pproaching the adjudicatory foru ion." the parties and perused the wh ent dated 03.10.1997 passed by tiff submits that the plaintiff join ndant No.6 Ajmer Singh joined nt No.7 Lal Singh joined fendant No.8 Karnail Singh join d defendant No.9 Babu joined bmits there is no criteria for fix ice. Plaintiff has joined the serv r to them. He further submits t dverse entry is in his service reco declared senior to defendants no er submits that plaintiff remain s. He filed this suit in the year 19

ould wn, ence 3-4 case s to um, hole ned ned xing vice ord, o. 6

and rep onc am pla he only his

¶21Nos sen ser wh tha con bas app So

¶22def yea pro rem

d prior to it he has not rais presentation. He submits that ce in the year 1985 and again ongst its employees as is cle aintiff never objected this senior is barred from raising any obje ly time barred but is also suffere prayer should be rejected.

No doubt, plaintiff has joine s. 6 to 9. There is again no doub nior to defendants No.6 to 9. It ere is any other criteria for fix rvice and this length has to be ich admittedly goes in favour of at seniority list was prepared ntention that it was circulated a seless without substantiate. E pearing in the witness box was this contention of the defendants

That the there is another gro e plaintiff. Admittedly, plainti fendants No. 6 to 9 but defenda ar 1973 and plaintiff did not omotion. Another juniors wer mained silent so in this regard th

sed any objection and filed a seniority list was prepared tw n in year 1996. It was circula ear from Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6 rity list and therefore, at this sta ection. Claim of the plaintiff is ed from delay and laches, therefo ed the department before defenda bt that as per length of service h t is also not proved on teh file t xing the seniority except length counted from the date of join f plaintiff. Claim of the defenda twice may be true but anot amongst its employees is absolu Even defendant Lal Singh, wh not aware about any seniority l s is rejected. ound of delay to object the claim iff joined the service prior ant Lal Singh was promoted in raise any objection against re also promoted but he ag his palpable delay of 20 years is

any ice, ated but age fore, ants e is h of ning ants ther tely hile list. m of to his

exp def acc

¶23whe hel dec

11.

The learned first App "15 Def on Def on Insp

12.

¶01tha pro Def pro afte Reg Ram

01.

plained so no declaration can b fendant department is at liberty cording to merits.

As far as limitation is conce enever his seniority list was vio ld to be not barred by limitation. cided in favour of plaintiff and ag e relevant portion of the judgme pellate Court is as under :-

¶5Defendant No.6 Ajmer Sin fendant No.8 Karnail Singh and

17.9.1973, 13.6.1973, 1.3.19 fendant No.6 Ajmer Singh was

01.03.1974 and defendant No.7 pector on 18.02.1974. After

07.1972 to 31.12.1973, the p

01.1974. After 01.01.1974, the at defendant No.6 Ajmer Singh a omoted as Works Mistri on 17.09 fendant No.8 Karnail Singh omoted as Works Mistri on 01.03 er the plaintiff had already garding defendant No.8 Karnai m also, he must have come to

03.1974 and 18.02.1974 resp

be issued in his favour. Howev to consider his claim and decid erned, plaintiff got cause of act olated, therefore, suit of plaintiff Accordingly, both these issues gainst the defendants. . ent dated 16.08.2001 passed by ngh, Defendant No.7 Lal Sin d Defendant No.9 Babu Ram w 974 and 18.2.1974 respectiv also promoted as Works Inspec 7 Lal Singh was promoted as Wo remaining absent from duty fr plaintiff had joined his duty e plaintiff must have come to kn and defendant No.7 Lal Singh w

9.1973 and 13.06.1973 respectiv and defendant No.9 Babu R

3.1974 and 18.02.1974, respectiv joined his duty on 01.01.19 il Singh and defendant No.9 Ba know that they were promoted ectively. Defendant No.6 Ajm

ver, de it tion ff is are ngh, were ely. ctor orks rom on now were ely. Ram vely

¶974abu d on

Sin Insp Ajm kno Insp on tak def reg was from rep reg on to pla def pla pro and this Ram Na wri

ngh and defendant No.7 Lal pectors on 01.03.1974 and 18.0 mer Singh and defendant No.7 La ow that defendant No.6 Ajmer pector on 01.03.1974 and defen this post on 18.02.1974. Even ken that the plaintiff could not kn fendant No.6 to 9, prior to garding the period of his absen s taken, the plaintiff would file th m 08.06.1977. In the plaint, i presentation was made by the p garding his promotion and senio the file the copy of representatio 5, regarding his promotion an aced on the file the copy of fendant No.1 to 5 regarding his aintiff given any representation to omotion and seniority, he must h d place a copy of such represen s has not been done by the plain m which has been referred to by th during the course of argum itten to the Department praying e basis of material on the file, it c

Singh were promoted as Wo

02.1974. Regarding defendant N al Singh also, he must have come r Singh was promoted as Wo ndant No.7 Lal Singh was promo if for the sake of argument, it w now about the dates of promotion

078.09.1977, when the decis nce w.e.f.12.07.1972 to 31.12.19 his suit within period of three ye it was no where pleaded that a plaintiff to defendant Nos. 1 to ority. The plaintiff has not pla on, given by him to defendant N d seniority. The plaintiff has representation, given by him promotion and seniority. Had o defendant No.1 to 5 regarding have pleaded this fact in the pla ntation on the file of this case. ntiff. The statement of DW-1 An y learned counsel for plaintiff Jag ment, shows that the plaintiff h that his service book be traced. cannot be said that the plaintiff h

orks No.6 e to orks oted was n of sion ears any o 5 ced No.1 to g his aint All nant gan had On

ma pro Dep refe see pre sen Am No. Kur as Cir Eng Div tha sen sui and

¶16jud set No. app wit

de any representation to defe omotion and seniority and the partment till filing of the suit. ferred to by learned counsel for em to be of any help to the plai esent case. A perusal of letter d nt by the Superintending Engine mbala Cantt., to the Executive E .1 & II, Kurukshetra Provi. Di rukshetra shows that vide this l on 31.08.1985 was sent by S rcle, P.W.D B&R Branch, A gineer, Ambala Provi. Division vision No.1 & II P.W.D B&R B at the plaintiff must have com niority in the month of September t which was filed on 29.08.1992 d because of this reason, the sam

In view of the above d dgment and decree passed by the aside the same and dismiss th .215 of 1999 filed by the Stat peal No.11 of 2000 filed by the th costs."

endants No.1 to 5 regarding e same was not decided by The authority 1996(1) SLR 2 r the plaintiff Jagan Nath does intiff in the light of the facts of dated 11.09.1985 Ex.D-5 which w eer Ambala Circle, PWD B&R Engineer, Ambala Provi. Divis ivision No.1 & 11 PWD, B&R letter seniority list of Works Mi Superintending Engineer, Amb Ambala Cantt., to the Execu n No.1 & II, Kurukshetra Pro Branch Kurukshetra. All this sho me to know about the position r, 1985. In my opinion, the pres 2 was patently barred by limitat me was liable to be dismissed. discussion, I hold that the impug e learned trial Court were illega e suit of the plaintiff. The app te is accepted with costs and e plaintiff Jagan Nath is dismis

his 241, f the was Br. sion Br. istri bala tive ovl. ows n of sent tion ned l. I peal

12.

A promoted in the find any infirmi dated 16.08.200 appellant was h of cause of act rightly held by

16.08.2001.

13.

In v Court in the cas infirmity in the the present appe

14.

Pen

October 15, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

perusal of the above shows t e year 1973 and the civil suit w ity in the judgment passed by th 01, since it is detailed and wel ighly belated since it was filed a tion. Hence the civil suit was y the learned first Appellate view of the above and in view of se of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra judgment dated 16.08.2001 and eal is dismissed. nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

that the private respondents w was filed in the year 1992. I do he learned first Appellate Autho ll reasoned. Civil suit filed by after almost 19 years from the d not maintainable and it has b Court, vide its judgment da f the judgment of Hon'ble Supre a & Ors (supra), I do not find d the same is upheld. According tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

were rity date een ated eme any gly,