Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Gurnam Singh vs Haryana State Agrl.Marketing Etc on 29 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057709
RSA-72-1993 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:057709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(122)
RSA-72-1993 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 29.04.2024
Gurnam Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Ravinder Kumar (Ravi), Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts
below.
2. Pleaded case of plaintiff is that he joined the service as a Junior
Engineer (Electrical) on 07.04.1979 and his name figured at Serial No.3 in
the seniority list circulated in the year 1986. He filed objections to the
seniority list to the effect that he is entitled to the benefit of service
rendered by him as a Junior Engineer from 07.12.1976 to 20.05.1977.
Ganesh Dutt and Karam Singh, who were his juniors, were assigned the
charge of the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Electrical) ignoring his claim.
He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he may deemed to be
promoted to the post of a Sub Divisional Officer (Electrical) from the date
his juniors were promoted and claimed consequential benefits.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057709
RSA-72-1993 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:057709
3. Upon notice, suit has been contested by defendant-respondent
No.1, wherein various preliminary objections were taken. A stand was
taken that seniority is determined on the basis of length of service in the
cadre as provided in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service
Rules, 1974. It was submitted that Ganesh Dutt possessed a AMIE degree
and on its strength, he was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer (Electrical)
on regular post, whereas Karam Singh was senior to the plaintiff.
Defendants-respondents No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte.
Plaintiff filed a replication re-asserting the claim. Issues were framed on the
basis of the pleadings of the parties and after they led evidence, Trial Court
by judgment and decree dated 22.04.1991, dismissed the suit. Plaintiff
remained unsuccessful in first appeal, which was rejected by judgment
dated 12.08.1992.
4. By referring to communications dated 21.12.1998, 18.05.1999
and 20.03.1998, Annexures A-2 to A-4, addressed by respondent No.1,
counsel for the appellant has contended that Karam Singh did not possess
the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional
Officer (Electrical) and his promotion was in violation of the service rules.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed
the appeal and submits that the documents upon which reliance is being
placed by the appellant have neither been produced nor proved. It is his
argument that the plaintiff as well as the private respondents have retired
from service during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal has become
infructuous.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057709
RSA-72-1993 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:057709
7. One of the grounds on which the first appeal has been declined by
the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra is that plaintiff has not
been able to establish that Karam Singh was not qualified to hold the post
of Sub Divisional Officer (Electrical). A perusal of the documents,
Annexures A-2 to A-4, show that this finding seems to be against the
record. The documents relied upon by the appellant have come into being
during the pendency of the instant appeal. This Court is, therefore, of the
view that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to produce and
prove them, so that the Court is in a position to appreciate their import. This
Court is, therefore, of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted to the
First Appellate Court for the decision afresh.
8. Accordingly, impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court is set aside. Matter is remitted to the learned District Judge,
Kurukshetra to decide the appeal afresh, after hearing the parties,
uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove, by giving the parties
sufficient opportunity to produce and prove any additional material on
which they intend to rely upon.
9. Appeal is disposed of.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge,
Kurukshetra on 30.05.2024, who may hear the matter himself/herself or
assign it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
29.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
