LAL CHAND SINGLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Chand Singla joined as Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department of the State of Punjab in the year 1965. Karnail Singh defendant also joined as Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department of the State of Punjab. At the time of appointment as clerk, Lal Chand Singla was senior to Karnail Singh defendant. Prior to joining the service of the Punjab Lal Chand Singla was in Army. He was in Army from 6.1.1963 to 16.7.1964 i.e. during the period when of the proclamation of national emergency was still in operation. Grievance of Lal Chand Singla was that when he joined the service of the Punjab he was not given the benefit of army service though the benefit of army service should have been given to him. Benefit of army service was not given to him despite repealed representations. In the year 1976, Karnail Singh defendant was promoted to the post of Accountant in disregard of the claim of Lal Chand Singla plaintiff though he was senior to him. Later on, Karnail Singh defendant was reverted to the post of Clerk but was again promoted in the year 1983 through order dated 15.9.1983. He was not promoted though he was senior to Karnail Singh defendant and was also fulfilling the qualifications required for the post of Accountant. Vide order dated 17.12.1987, Karnail Singh defendant was promoted to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer again in disregard of the claim of Lal Chand Singla. On these allegations, Lal Chand Singla filed suit for declaration whereby he challenged the orders of the Punjab dated 25.6.19786, 15.9.1983 and 17.12.1987 whereby he was ignored for promotion though he was ahead of Karnail Singh defendant in the ladder of seniority. Plaintiff asked for mandatory injunction also directing the State of Punjab to treat him to have been promoted as Accountant/Excise and Taxation Officer from the date Karnail Singh was promoted and further to grant him all benefits, privileges and arrears of salary and allowances etc. with compound interest at the market rate.

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that the plaintiff could not be promoted over the head of Karnail Singh defendant to the post of Accountant as for promotion to the post of Accountant, a clerk is required essentially to be a Graduate. In the year 1976 when Karnail Singh defendant was promoted, plaintiff was not a graduate. Karnail Singh defendant was reverted to the post of Clerk for want of vacancy. In the year 1983, Karnail Singh defendant was promoted to the post of Accountant in preference to Lal Chand Singla as he had worked previously on the post of Accountant. Karnail Singh defendant was promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer in the year 1987 over the head of plaintiff as the plaintiff had lagged behind him when the latter was promoted to the post of Accountant and also in the year 1987, Lal Chand Singla had not put in five years on the post of Accountant.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is premature ? OPD