Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sadhu Ram on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045717
2024:PHHC:045717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205
RSA-1818-1996
Date of decision : 04.04.2024
State of Punjab and others ....Appellants
V/S
Sadhu Ram ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
None for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal against
judgment and decree dated 05.02.1996, whereby learned District Judge,
Hoshiarpur while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff
has set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1994 passed by
learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiapur, whereby a suit for declaration
filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed
a suit for a declaration that the order dated 07.09.1992 passed by State
by which his seniority was fixed from the date of his confirmation i.e.
17.04.1984 instead of the date of his appointment i.e. 22.11.1965, was
illegal. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and
decree dated 14.02.1994. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the
respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed by the lower
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045717
2024:PHHC:045717
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.1996. Now, the
appellants/defendants have filed the present regular second appeal.
3. While issuing notice of motion on 27.02.1997, the
following contention of learned State counsel was recorded :-
"The determination of seniority is governed by the
provisions of Rule 13 which inter alia provides that "the
seniority of members of the service shall in each class of
appointment shown in Appendix 'A' be determined by the
date of their substantive appointment to a permanent
vacancy in such class......" Mr. dhillon, counsel for the
appellants contends that the plaintiff has not proved on the
record that he was appointed against a permanent vacancy
on November 22, 1965. He further states that the persons
who were likely to be affected by the change in seniority
were necessary parties and in their absence, the claim as
made in the plaint could not have been decreed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the appeal is
admitted. It is further directed that the operation of the
judgment and decree under appeal shall remain stayed
during the pendency of the case."
4. In terms of order dated 26.02.2024, notice was issued to the
sole respondent. As per office report, the sole respondent has been
served, however, none has put in appearance on his behalf.
5. Learned State counsel has produced a copy of letter dated
01.04.2024 written by the sole respondent-Sadhu Ram, retired Forester,
addressed to the Chief Forest Officer wherein it has been stated that he
already stood retired from service, on attaining the age of
superannuation, on 31.05.2004 and while he was in service, he was
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045717
2024:PHHC:045717
promoted to the post of Forester in the year 1996 and get all the
promotional benefits as well and he does not want to pursue the present
appeal i.e. RSA No.1818 of 1996 'State of Punjab Vs. Sadhu Ram'. The
said letter is taken on record.
6. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the
judgment and decree dated 05.02.1996 passed by the lower Appellate
Court is hereby set aside.
7. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
8. However, liberty is granted to the sole respondent for
revival of the present appeal in case he still aggrieved against this order.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent for
information
04.04.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
