Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savinder Kumar vs Haryana State on 29 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011370
2024:PHHC:011370
RSA-802-1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
219 RSA-802-1995
Date of decision:29.01.2024
SAVINDER KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VS.
HARYANA STATE & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Karma, Advocate for
Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
None for respondents No.2 and 3.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant has filed the present second appeal
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1994 passed by the
First Appellate Court, whereby judgment and decree dated 01.10.1992
passed by the Trial Court has been set aside and the suit has been
dismissed.
2. Brief factual position may be noticed.
3. Plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration pleading that
he joined as Air Conditioner and Refrigerator Mechanic on 23.03.1977,
whereas defendant-respondents No.2 and 3 joined the same post on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011370
2024:PHHC:011370
RSA-802-1995 -2-
10.05.1977. They were promoted as Assistant Foremen-cum Chargeman,
but the plaintiff-appellant was ignored. He claims to have submitted
representations and when they did not yield any result, he filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that he may be deemed to be promoted as
Chargeman/Assistant Foremen from the date his juniors/defendants-
respondents No.2 and 3 were promoted.
4. Upon notice, suit has been contested by the defendants-
respondents by filing separate written statements. In its written
statement, State-defendant/respondent No.1 has submitted that
respondents No.2 and 3 were promoted in 1979 and their promotion list
was circulated in November, 1983, and the suit by the plaintiff-appellant
is barred by time. It has been further submitted that both the private
respondents were engaged in different divisions and that the rules
governing the service of the plaintiff-appellant are being framed and he
would be promoted as and when there is an availability of a post. On the
basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after the
parties led evidence, Trial Court decreed the suit and held that the
plaintiff-appellant is deemed to be promoted from the date he was made
regular and he is entitled to pay and enhanced allowances attached to the
promotional post. In appeal preferred by State-respondent No.1 as
noticed above, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed.
Hence, the present second appeal at the hands of the plaintiff-appellant.
5. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that after
rendering work charge service, the plaintiff-appellant as well as the
private respondents were made regular and a joint seniority list was
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011370
2024:PHHC:011370
RSA-802-1995 -3-
prepared. It is his submission that the seniority list was to be maintained
at the circle level and the divisional level seniority list has no
significance. Still further, he submits that the plaintiff-appellant had
given various representations, which were not acceded to and the Lower
Appellate Court has erred in holding that the suit is barred by time.
6. State counsel has, however, supported the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
8. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-appellant was appointed
prior in point of time. It is also an admitted position that the private
respondents were promoted in the year 1979-1980. Despite being aware
of the promotion order of the private respondents, plaintiff-appellant
instituted the suit for declaration in September, 1987. No reason
whatsoever has been given for the delay in the institution of the suit,
which was hopelessly barred by time. Although, it has been urged by the
counsel that repeated representations had been given by him, but a
categoric finding has been returned by the Lower Appellate Court that he
failed to produce any evidence to show that he had ever represented. His
ocular evidence in this regard is meaningless as it is not supported by
any document. Mere fact that the case of the plaintiff-appellant has been
sent for consideration for promotion would not extend the period of
limitation. The plaintiff-appellant has slept over his rights and failed to
assert them when the cause arose. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and others Vs. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1; State of Punjab
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011370
2024:PHHC:011370
RSA-802-1995 -4-
Vs. Rajinder Singh 1999 SCC (L & S) 664 and State of Punjab and
another Vs. Balkaran Singh (2006) 12 SCC 709 has held that Article 58
of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of three
years for filing suit for declaration from the date the cause of action
arises. Civil suit by the plaintiff-appellant is clearly barred by limitation.
9. Looked at from all possible angles, this Court is of the firm
view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree
passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which deserves to be upheld.
10. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
29.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011370
4 of 4
