Chief Administrator Haryana State ... vs Kailash Chand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5006 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chief Administrator Haryana State ... vs Kailash Chand on 11 November, 2025

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                RSA-9722-2018 (O&M)                                             -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                         RSA-9722-2018 (O&M)
                                                         Reserved on : 15.09.2025
                                                         Pronounced on : 11.11.2025

                Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and

                another                                                   ......Appellants

                                                 Vs.

                Kailash Chand                                             ......Respondent

                CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

                Present :      Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate, and
                               Ms. Ayushi, Advocate,
                               for the appellants.

                               Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate,
                               for the respondent.
                                                         ****
                SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Mohindergarh, whereby civil suit filed by the respondent was

decreed in his favour, as well as the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016

passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal

filed by the appellants was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the civil suit, are that

respondent was appointed as Peon on 06.09.1982 with the respondents and

RSA-9722-2018 (O&M) -2-

since then he was working as Peon. He completed his matriculation

examination on 02.08.1987 and became eligible for promotion to the post of

Auction Recorder. Vide order dated 24.12.1999, those employees, who had

passed matriculation examination and completed one year of service, were

promoted from 02.09.1986. However, the respondent was denied the said

promotion, although, Class-IV employees were considered in seniority on

the basis of date of appointment. Respondent filed many representations but

received no reply. Therefore, he filed civil suit, which was decreed in his

favour by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh, vide its

judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013. The appellants filed appeal against

the said judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013, which was dismissed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide its judgment and decree

dated 18.11.2016. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that findings of

both the Courts are against the facts and circumstances and evidence on

record as well as without application of judicious mind. He, therefore, prays

that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that both

the Courts have rightly decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Therefore, he prays that the

present appeal be dismissed.

RSA-9722-2018 (O&M) -3-

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of the case with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the Secretary, Market

Committee, Kanina, was examined as DW1, who admitted the fact that vide

common order dated 24.12.1999, respondent and Dashrath both were

promoted, but Dashrath was given promotional benefits from 1986. It is

further admitted that Dashrath was at Serial No.44 and respondent was at

Serial No.19 in the seniority list and therefore, Dashrath was junior to the

respondent, as per date of joining. He also admitted that respondent was

fulfilling all the conditions required for promotion on 24.12.1999 and also

intimated regarding his passing of matriculation in the year 1998. The

documentary record shows that Dashrath joined the service after the

respondent and was promoted, vide common order dated 24.12.1999. The

service book of Dashrath (Ex.P3) contains categorical remarks that

"Dashrath Singh, Auction Recorder, Market Committee, Kanina, promoted

w.e.f. 02.09.1986, instead of 24.12.1999, when his junior was promoted,

vide endorsement dated 13.09.2006. The arrears of pay shall be payable for

38 months prior to his representation. Hence, his basic pay was fixed as

such, vide Memo dated 06.10.2006".

7. A perusal of the above discussion shows that respondent cleared

his matriculation examination on 02.08.1987 and therefore, he became

eligible for promotion. Since the respondent and Dashrath (who was junior

RSA-9722-2018 (O&M) -4-

in length of service) were promoted by a common order, the respondent was

also rightly held to be entitled to all the benefits from the said date, which

were granted to Dashrath (junior).

8. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in

the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Mohindergarh, as well as the judgment and decree dated

18.11.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, and the

same are hereby upheld.

9. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Parties

are left to bear their own costs.

10. Decree sheet be drawn.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 11.11.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No