Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Shiv Ram on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061640
1
RSA No.2555 of 1993 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2555 of 1993
Decided on: 26.04.2024
State of Haryana and others
......Appellants
Versus
Shri Shiv Ram
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana,
for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 03.08.1993 passed by the Court of learned
District Judge, Ambala, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff-
respondent against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1992 passed
by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, Ambala City, dismissing
his suit for declaration, has been allowed.
2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their
status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff
filed a suit for declaration challenging order No.52 dated 31.05.1990
issued by defendant no.3 to be illegal, null and void claiming his
entitlement to promotion to the rank of Forester, being senior to the
persons who have been promoted as Forester vide said order. It was
averred that he was appointed as Forest Guard on 29.01.1970 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061640
qualified the course of training prescribed from 07.06.1971 to
21.11.1971 and is working in the same capacity with defendant no.4.
As per the seniority list his name is at Sr. No. 274. On 14.08.1987 and
08.06.1990 he applied for his case to be considered for promotion from
the rank of Forest Guard, based on the seniority list but to no avail.
However, his juniors were promoted.
3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed the written
statement taking the preliminary objections as regards the
maintainability of the suit as no notice U/S 80 C.P.C. was served;
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to hear the present suit, besides
mentioning that the plaintiff did not possess any cause of action.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and from
the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial
Court:-
1. Whether order no.52 dated 31.5.1990 issued by the
defendant no. 3 is illegal, null and void against
principles of natural justice, if so to what effect?
OPP
2. Is the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable? OPD
3. Is this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for cause of
action? OPD
5. Relief.
5. After hearing arguments and after appreciating evidence
on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment
and decree dated 22.07.1992.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061640
6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court,
which has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.1993.
Hence, this appeal by the defendants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-State contended that
judgment of the lower appellate Court is the result of mis-reading and
mis-interpretation of the evidence on record and the judgment of the
trial Court has wrongly been set aside. He further contended that the
lower appellate Court committed grave error by recording a finding that
plaintiff-respondent was entitled to promotion from the post of Forest
Guard to the post of Forester from the date when his juniors were
promoted. He further contended that reliance upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in K.K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, 1990(1)
S.L.R. 1 by the lower Appellate Court was mis-placed. Notice of
motion in this appeal was issued on 25.11.1993 and operation of the
impugned judgment was stayed. Thereafter, the matter was admitted
on 13.01.1994. Learned State counsel submitted that despite best
efforts, State has not been able to get the particulars of LRs of sole
respondent, who died during the pendency of the instant appeal,
therefore, he does not press the present appeal, however sought liberty
to get revived the same in case any execution application is preferred
by LRs of the deceased-respondent.
8. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed as not
pressed at this stage with aforesaid liberty.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061640
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
