Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hazur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041608
RSA-918-1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:041608
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(140) RSA-918-1993
Date of decision : 21.03.2024
Hazur Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms Alka Chatrath, Advocate, Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(Oral)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1992 passed by the First
Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-appellant are that he joined
the Animal Husbandry Department as a Milk Recorder on 01.08.1961 and was
absorbed on the post on 28.10.1966 without disturbing his seniority. He was
transferred as Poultry Assistant, which was in the same cadre. Both the posts
were inter-changeable. As his name did not figure in the seniority list of
Poultry Assistant, he made a representation, which was accepted and his name
was mentioned at serial No.13 in the seniority list by taking his date of
appointment as 03.07.1974. Claiming that his service was liable to be counted
from 01.08.1961, he served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C and filed a suit for
declaration for inclusion his name at the appropriate place in the seniority list
as also for promotion as Poultry Inspector. Upon notice, suit was contested by
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041608
RSA-918-1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:041608
the defendant-respondent by filing a written statement, wherein, it has been
submitted that the cadres of both the posts are different, although, they are
inter-changeable. A stand has been taken that the plaintiff was working as a
Milk Recorder and never joined as a Poultry Assistant. It has been submitted
that the seniority list has been correctly prepared by the department. Re-
asserting his claim, plaintiff filed a replication.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed
and after the parties led evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated
24.09.1991, decreed the suit. Defendants filed an appeal, which was accepted
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, resulting in
the institution of the instant appeal at the hands of the plaintiff.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. A categoric finding has been recorded by the First Appellate Court
that the seniority list of both the posts of Milk Recorder and Poultry Assistant
are different, although, the posts are inter-changeable. Counsel for the
appellant could not show any material nor could she point out from the
applicable service rules that cadres of both posts are same and a joint seniority
list was being prepared by the defendants. Another reason for reversing the
finding is that the plaintiff-appellant has not impleaded all the persons, who are
likely to be effected. Furthermore, due to efflux of time, nothing worthwhile
survives in the appeal as the plaintiff-appellant, who had joined the department
in the year 1961, must have retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation during the pendency of the litigation.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041608
RSA-918-1993(O&M) 2024:PHHC:041608
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, this Court does
not find any merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
21.03.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
neeraj JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
