Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Om Parkash Ola on 19 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 217)
(1) RSA-3794-2017(O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board
...Appellant
Versus
Manohar Lal
...Respondent
(2) RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and
XOBJS-26-C-2017
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board
...Appellant
Versus
Om Parkash Ola
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate with
Ms. Khushboo, Advocate for the appellant in both the RSAs.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Naveen, Advocate
for the respondent in RSA No. 3794-2017.
Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the respondent in
RSA-3911-2017 and for Cross-Objectors in RSA-3911-2017.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present bunch of appeal, the challenge is to the
judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 24.08.2016 in
RSA No. 3794 of 2017 and the judgment and decree of the lower
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
appellate court dated 24.08.2016 in RSA No. 3911 of 2017 by which, the
suits filed by the respondents-plaintiffs after their retirement, seeking
promotions retrospectively on the ground that their juniors were
promoted, have been allowed and the objections raised by the appellant-
defendant that the suit was time barred, has been rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from
RSA-3794-2017, which are as under :-
3. The respondent-plaintiff, Manohar Lal was a regular
employee of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula
and retired from service on 31.05.2009 as an Assistant Secretary from
Market Committee, Sirsa. After retirement, the respondent-plaintiff filed
a civil suit claiming that as he joined the services of the Market
Committee, Sirsa as a Mandi Supervisor on 08.01.1970, he was entitled
for promotion as Accountant w.e.f. 04.01.1971 and thereafter, consequent
promotion as Assistant Secretary w.e.f. 17.01.1991 and thereafter, as
Secretary w.e.f. 30.06.1996 i.e. from the date when his junior, namely,
Faquir Chand Gupta was promoted. The said civil suit was contested by
the appellant-defendant on facts as well as on the ground of limitation that
the same has been filed after the retirement and that too qua seeking
promotion as an Accountant starting from the year 1971, which relates to
39 years prior to the actual date of filing of the civil suit.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
4. The trial court keeping in view the facts and circumstances/
evidence, which had come on record, came to the conclusion that the suit
is time barred and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2012.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision of the trial court,
an appeal was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff, which came to be
decided by the lower appellate court on 24.08.2016. The lower appellate
court held that keeping in view the fact that certain candidates, who were
juniors to the respondent-plaintiff were promoted from a particular date,
the senior gets a right to claim promotion. The lower appellate court held
that one Kali Ram Naidu and Faquir Chand Gupta, who were juniors to
the respondent-plaintiff and they were granted promotion from a
particular date, the same is liable to be extended even to the respondent-
plaintiff as well and the ground of limitation was held in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff on the ground that a senior employee cannot denied
his legitimate claim for promotion, hence, the present regular second
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that not
only the respondent-plaintiff but some other employees, namely, Rana
Balbir Singh, Vinod Kumar Sharma and Jai Parkash Sharma also claimed
the benefit of promotion after their retirement. Learned counsel further
submits that similar suit filed by Vinod Kumar Sharma and Jai Parkash
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
Sharma, their claims were dismissed by the courts below being time
barred, whereas the suit of Rana Balbir Singh was allowed, as done in the
case of the present respondent-plaintiff.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that in
an appeal filed being RSA No. 3012 of 2012 qua the relief granted in
favour of Rana Balbir Singh, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a
detailed order has held that the claim of promotion after retirement is time
barred by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1975 SC 2271, wherein it has been held that the matters of promotions
and seniority should only be agitated within a period of six months or at
the most one year from the date of accrual of cause of action, hence, the
claim of promotion raised after retirement is not admissible and will be
treated as time barred. In the said regular second appeal also, the
promotion was being sought on the basis of the promotion given to junior
employee, namely, Kali Ram Naidu only. Learned counsel for the
appellant-defendant submits that the judgment and decree in the case of
Vinod Kumar Sharma as well as Jai Parkash Sharma vide which similar
claim was rejected, was upheld by dismissing the RSA No. 2814 of 2019
as well as RSA No. 538 of 2019.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other
hand, submits that a similar claim of one Banwari Lal has been allowed
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in RSA No.
183 of 2013, decided on 10.12.2015 and the SLP against the said order
was also dismissed, hence, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate
court is liable to be upheld.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
10. It may be noticed that in the present RSAs, the suits were
filed by the respondent-plaintiff after the retirement and that too claiming
promotion with retrospective effect on the ground that one Kali Ram
Naidu and Faquir Chand Gupta were granted promotions in preference to
him, which promotions were given in the year 1971. The consequent
promotions were also sought. The issue in hand has already been decided
by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing order in RSA No. 3012 of 2012
titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Rana Balbir
Singh, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in P.S. Sadasivaswamy(supra), wherein, it was held that
the suit is time barred. The findings recorded by the lower appellate
courts qua the maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff,
in the facts and circumstances of the case which have been noticed here-
in-before, is perverse to the settled principle of law settled by this Court
in Rana Balbir Singh (supra).
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
11. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs have not been
able to distinguish how, the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs, which is
also based on the promotion of Kali Ram Naidu as well as Faquir Chand
Gupta, is distinguishable with the one in Rana Balbir Singh (supra).
Once, the claim of the respondent-plaintiff for retrospective promotion is
akin to one raised by Rana Balbir Singh and the said claim has already
been held to be time barred keeping in view the judgment passed in RSA
No. 3012 of 2012, no benefit of retrospective promotion can be given to
the respondent-plaintiff.
12. With regard to the reliance being placed by the respondents-
plaintiffs on the judgment in RSA No. 183 of 2013 in Banwari Lal
(supra), it may be noticed that the said order was passed in the year 2015
whereas the other orders of the similarly situated employees were passed
on a much later date by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking a
contrary view. A Co-ordinate Bench in case of Vinod Kumar Sharma
(supra), held that the order passed by the courts below declining the
claim of Vinod Kumar Sharma, which was also based on the same facts as
being claimed by the respondents-plaintiffs, was time barred and said
judgment was passed in the year 2016. Once, three different benches of
this Court in the similar facts have already held that no claim can be made
for promotion after retirement, no benefit of the judgment in Banwari Lal
(supra), can be given to the respondents-plaintiffs.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052662
RSA-3794-2017(O&M) and
RSA-3911-2017 (O&M)and 2024:PHHC:052662
XOBJS-26-C-2017
13. Keeping in view the above, the findings recorded by the
courts below that the suits was within limitation with regard to seeking of
promotion from the year 1971, which suits were filed after the retirement
in the year 2010, the findings recorded by the lower appellate courts are
perverse to the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in Rana
Balbir Singh (supra).
14. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated
24.08.2016 in RSA No. 3794 of 2017 as well as judgment and decree of
the lower appellate court dated 24.08.2016 in RSA No. 3911 of 2017 are
set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2012 of the trial court
in RSA No. 3794 of 2017 as well as judgment and decree dated
29.10.2013 of the trial court in RSA No. 3911 of 2017 are revived and the
suits filed by the respondents-plaintiffs are dismissed.
15. The cross objections filed by the respondent-plaintiff in RSA
No. 3911 of 2017 are also dismissed for the reasons stated here-in-before.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
April 19th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
