Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh Chhina Deceased ... vs Haryana State Agricultural ... on 24 January, 2023
CM-7332-C-2022 in/and
RSA-2144-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(273) CM-7332-C-2022 in/and
RSA-2144-2022
Date of Decision : 24.01.2023
Kirpal Singh Chhina deceased through his Lrs.
...Appellants
Versus
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
CM-7332-C-2022
Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay
of 41 days in filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 41 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-2144-2022
In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the
order of the lower appellate court dated 27.01.2022 by which, the judgment
and decree of the trial court dated 03.05.2017 has been set-aside and the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff (since deceased) has been dismissed.
Certain facts need to be enumerated for the correct appreciation
of the controversy. Appellant-plaintiff (since deceased) Kirpal Singh
1 of 3
CM-7332-C-2022 in/and
Chhina was appointed as a Fee Collector in the year 1962. Thereafter, he
was designated as a Mandi Supervisor on 30.06.1963. On 07.08.1979, he
was promoted as Accountant and ultimately, retired on 31.08.1997 while
working on the said post. In the year 2014 i.e. after about 17 years of the
retirement, the appellant-plaintiff Kirpal Singh Chhina (since deceased)
filed a civil suit claiming promotion with retrospective effect i.e. 04.01.1971
from the date when the persons junior to him, namely, Kali Ram Naidu as
well as Prem Chand Sharma were extended the said benefit. The said suit
was filed by the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that the persons junior to
him have been given promotion w.e.f. 04.01.1971 i.e. a date prior to when
the appellant-plaintiff was promoted hence, the appellant-plaintiff be also
given the promotion with effect from the date the persons junior to him were
promoted. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed by the trial
court vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017 and a direction was given
to grant the appellant-plaintiff promotion as Accountant w.e.f. 04.01.1971
and to fix the pay and the pensionary benefits with arrears within a period of
three months. The said judgment of the trial court dated 03.05.2017 was
appealed by the respondent-defendant-Agricultural Marketing Board as well
as by the appellant-plaintiff, which came to be decided vide a common order
dated 27.01.2022.
The appellant-plaintiff also filed cross objection against the
trial court order dated 30.05.2017 claiming the interest on the arrears for
which, he was entitled for by the trial court. The lower appellate court
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant-Marketing Board and
dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff being barred by limitation
and the same could not have been entertained by the trial court and
2 of 3
CM-7332-C-2022 in/and
consequent cross objections filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking interest
was disposed of having been rendered infructuous as the main judgment of
the trial court dated 03.05.2017 was set-aside. In the present regular second
appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the lower
appellate court by which, the judgment and decree of the trial court dated
03.05.2017 has been set-aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff
has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
It is a conceded position that the appellant-plaintiff had retired
in the year 1997 and the suit was filed in the year 2014 i.e. after 17 years of
retirement, claiming promotion with retrospective effect i.e. from the year
1971. Nothing has been shown as to how, the said claim will be admissible
to the appellant-plaintiff being time barred. The limitation for claiming a
benefit had stood expired long ago.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to
show as to how, the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are
perverse to the facts or evidence, which had come on record. In the absence
of any perversity qua the facts or the evidence, no relief can be given to the
appellant-plaintiff in the present appeal.
Keeping in view the above, as no finding, which is perverse to
the facts or the evidence, no interference is called for by this Court in the
present regular second appeal.
Dismissed.
January 24, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
