Brijendra Singh vs J V V N L And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1987 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 814/2017
Brijendra Singh S/o Shri Ratan Lal Saini, R/o Outside Surajpole
Gate, Bharatpur Raj.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     Jaipur    Vidhyut      Vitran      Nigam        Limited,    Through    Its
       Chairman
2.     Chief Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur
3.     Superintending Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
       Ltd., Bharatpur
4.     Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
       Bharatpur
5.     Assistant Engineer First, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
       Bharatpur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal
For Respondent(s)         :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
                       Order
05/03/2022

The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal

assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 in civil suit

No.307/2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divison) No.4,

Bharatpur, whereby his suit for declaration of permanent

injunction was dismissed, which has been affirmed by the

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2017 in civil regular

appeal No.153/2016.

The relevant facts, as culled out from record, are that the

appellant-plaintiff was appointed as work charge helper on

10.04.1964 and he claimed his promotion on the post of Meter

Reader on the basis of one memorandum of settlement dated

(2 of 3) [CSA-814/2017]

22.04.1971. The case of plaintiff was referred to the Settlement

Committee and the Committee vide order dated 18.03.1999

declined the promotion of the plaintiff. It was held by the

Settlement Committee in its order dated 18.03.1999 that the

plaintiff has already been accorded the benefit of pay fixation and

selection scale, since he does not possess the requisite

educational qualification, he is not entitled for promotion on the

post of Meter Reader. The plaintiff has assailed the order of

Settlement Committee dated 18.03.1999 by way of filing present

civil suit on 30.05.2002 alongwith a prayer for permanent

injunction to grant promotion as well as the notional benefits on

the post of Meter Reader.

Heard learned counsel for appellant.

During course of argument, counsel for appellant fairly

submits that petitioner was granted promotion on the post of

Meter Reader in the year 1990 and thereafter he has retired from

the service. However, he claimed that he is entitled to get

promotion taking into account his service from the date of his first

appointment i.e. 10.04.1969 and for consequential benefits

although notionally.

Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the

judgment rendered in the case of Ram Rakh Bishnoi Vs.

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jodhpur & Anr. reported

in 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 742.

The trial Court in its judgment dated 04.11.2009 has

appreciated statements of witnesses while examining the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.04.1971, on the basis of

which the appellant is claiming his right of promotion on the post

of Meter Reader. It has been observed that the educational

(3 of 3) [CSA-814/2017]

qualification up to secondary pass is required for promotion and

appellant does not possess such minimum qualification. The claim

of promotion on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement was also

examined by the Settlement Committee in its order dated

18.03.1999 and trial court did not find any infirmity in the order

dated 18.03.1999 and declined to quash the same.

The trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit, which has

been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. As far as the ratio

decidendi passed in the case of Ram Rakh Bishnoi (supra), the

same does not render any help to the appellant in the present

case as facts and circumstances are entirely different. In that

case, the issue was that the delinquent claimed salary for the post

on which he rendered his services and the issue was "taking work

without paying", this is not the case in hand. Findings recorded by

the courts below are findings of fact, which are duly based on

appreciation of evidence. The substantial questions of law as

proposed by appellant are essentially questions of fact which

required re-appreciation of evidence and the same is not

permissible within the scope of Section 100 CPC.

It is trite law that involved substantial questions of law is

sine qua non in order to exercise the scope of Section 100 CPC,

since no substantial questions of law are involved in the present

appeal and the same is bereft of merit.

Accordingly, the Civil Second Appeal is dismissed.

Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)

dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)