Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prakash Chandker vs H.S.E.B. Etc on 1 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
CM-4137-C-2023 in/and RSA-1570-1994 2023:PHHC:080195
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CM-4137-C-2023 in/and
RSA-1570-1994
Date of Decision : June 01, 2023
Prakash Chander .. Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate, with
Mr. Aryavarat Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-4137-C-2023
Present application has been filed for fixing the actual date of
hearing of the present appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the main
appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
RSA-1570-1994
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
of the lower Appellate Court dated 10.02.1994 by which the judgment and
decree of the trial Court dated 15.03.1991 has been set aside and the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
CM-4137-C-2023 in/and RSA-1570-1994 2023:PHHC:080195
2. It may be noticed that the suit was filed by the appellant-
plaintiff claiming the promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC)
in preference to respondents No. 4 to 6. The appellant-plaintiff claimed that
he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with the Punjab State
Electricity Board on 23.08.1963 and after the bifurcation of the joint
Punjab, he was absorbed in the Haryana State Electricity Board as LDC and
was promoted as a cashier on 01.06.1969. In the year 1991, a civil suit was
filed by the appellant-plaintiff claiming that respondents No. 2 to 4 were
promoted as UDC in preference to the appellant-plaintiff hence, he is
entitled for promotion as UDC w.e.f. the date the persons junior to him were
promoted with all consequential benefits.
3. Keeping in view the evidence and facts which came on record,
the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was allowed on the ground that
when the seniority was issued in the year 1976 of the joint cadre i.e. Lower
Division Clerk as well as Meter Reader, no opportunity of hearing was
given to the concerned employees so as to raise any objections to the said
seniority list hence, the change in the seniority list of the Lower Division
Clerk after merger of Meter Readers in the said cadre cannot cause
prejudice to the appellant-plaintiff who was working as Lower Division
Clerk and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree of the trial Court
dated 15.03.1991.
4. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision, an appeal was
preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board which came to be decided
on 10.02.1994. The lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and
decree of the trial Court and consequently suit filed by the appellant-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
CM-4137-C-2023 in/and RSA-1570-1994 2023:PHHC:080195
plaintiff was dismissed by noticing the fact that keeping in view the
decision of the Haryana State Electricity Board dated 31.08.1970, the post
of Meter Reader was made inter changable with the LDC and it was made a
joint cadre for further promotion to the post of UDC and the seniority list
prepared in the 1976 was of the joint cadre hence, once the employees, who
were senior to the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1976, were promoted, no
grievance can be raised by the appellant-plaintiff. Judgment and decree of
the lower Appellate Court dated 10.02.1994 is under challenge in the
present Regular Second Appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
that the fixation of seniority in the year 1976 by the Department so as to
grant the seniority to the private respondents over and above the appellant in
the cadre of LDC was bad and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was
rightly decided by the trial Court that while framing the joint seniority list
of LDC and Meter Readers, due opportunity was not given to the appellant-
plaintiff, which finding should not have been over ruled by the lower
Appellate Court without any cogent evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the
tentative seniority list, private respondents were shown junior to the
appellant hence, in the final seniority list, the same could not have been
treated senior to the appellant so as to give them promotion for the post of
UDC in preference to the appellant-plaintiff.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone
through the record with her able assistance.
8. It may be noticed that the seniority list issued in the year 1976
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
CM-4137-C-2023 in/and RSA-1570-1994 2023:PHHC:080195
is not under challenge in the present suit. Further, even the promotion of the
private respondents which was effected in the year 1976 to the post of
Upper Division Clerk are not under challenge. The suit was filed by the
appellant-plaintiff seeking promotion was filed in the year 1990. Once, the
promotions of the private respondents were effected in the year 1976, it can
only be said that the cause of action accrued to the appellant-plaintiff in the
year 1976. That being so, nothing has come on record as to how, the suit
was filed within limitation in the year 1990, when the same was filed.
9. Even otherwise, it has already come on record that keeping in
view the decision of the Haryana State Electricity Board passed on
31.08.1970, there was a joint cadre of LDC and Meter Reader. Keeping in
view the said decision taken, a joint seniority list was framed of the Meter
Reader as well as LDC keeping in view the date of their initial appointment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to rebut the
fact that the private respondents were appointed on the post of Meter Reader
prior to the date when the appellant was appointed as LDC. That being so,
it cannot be said that in the joint cadre of LDC and Meter Reader, the
private respondents, who were working as Meter Reader, were junior to the
appellant in any manner so as to give a right of preference to the appellant-
plaintiff for promotion as Upper Division Clerk.
10. Another point which has been ignored by the Court below is
that prior to the year 1970, the appellant had already been promoted as a
cashier in the year 1969. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for
the appellant that for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk, even
the cashiers were entitled and the said cadre of cashier was a feeder cadre to
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
CM-4137-C-2023 in/and RSA-1570-1994 2023:PHHC:080195
the promotion of UDC. Hence, once concededly the appellant was working
as a cashier since 1969 and nothing has been brought on record to show that
the cashiers were also entitled for promotion as UDC, the claim raised in the
year 1991 seeking promotion to the post of UDC, has rightly not been
allowed by the lower Appellate Court.
11. No other point was argued.
12. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity has been pointed
out in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, no ground is
made out for any interference by this Court in the present Regular Second
Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
June 01, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080195
5 of 5
