Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 11 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 2023:PHHC:157789
RSA-376-1995
Date of decision: 11.12.2023
RAM KUMAR @ RAM KANWAR ..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this regular second appeal, the correctness of the judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court is challenged by the plaintiff. The
appellant filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to receive the selection
grade with effect from 01.04.1971, along with all the incidental benefits. It is
the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a trained J.B.T. Teacher in
the year 1960 in District Hisar. On bifurcation of District Hisar in the year
1972, at the option of the appellant, he was allocated District Bhiwani (a
newly carved district). He filed a suit on 21.11.1987.
2. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that Sh.
Harbans Lal, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Parmanand, who were at seniority
No.315 to 317, were granted selection grade with effect from 09.08.1973,
whereas, the appellant was a senior.
3. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence
found that the appellant himself opted for the District Bhiwani, hence, he
could not claim seniority over and above the teachers already posted in
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157789
2023:PHHC:157789
RSA-376-1995 -2-
District Bhiwani and further there cannot be made any comparison with the
teachers, who have continued to work in District Hisar.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
First Appellate Court has erred while passing the judgment as the well
reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court has wrongly been reversed. He
further submits that the appellant has been making repeated representations
and therefore, his suit has been filed within the prescribed period.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent submits that after the plaintiff was allocated District Bhiwani as
per his option, he lost his right of seniority in District Hisar. It is further
contended that the appellant filed the suit after a period of nearly 14 years.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. It is a well settled legal principle laid down by the Courts times
and over again that the repeated representations do not extend the period of
limitation. In this case, the suit was filed after a period of 14 years from the
date, when the alleged juniors to the appellant were granted the selection
grade.
9. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to draw the attention of
the Court to the relevant instructions to prove that the appellant was entitled
to be granted the selection grade.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is
made out.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157789
2023:PHHC:157789
RSA-376-1995 -3-
11. Dismissed accordingly.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
December 11th, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157789
3 of 3
