SHANGARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the trial Court in Suit No. 34 of 3.2.1994 decided on 21.2.1992 by Gurnam Singh, P.P.S., Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and the judgment of the appellate court dated 15.6.1999 rendered by the Court of Baldev Singh, District Judge, Kapurthala dated 15.5.1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the decision of this RSA may be briefly noticed. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for declaration to the effect that he is senior as Patwari to respondent No. 3. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the order dated 31.5.1993 of respondent No. 2 promoting respondent No. 3 to the post/rank of Kanungo is void, illegal and against the principles of natural notice. The plaintiff also prayed for issuance of a mandatory injunction to respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion to the post of Kanungo from the date from which his junior (defendant No. 3) has been promoted to the post of Kanungo and for the grant of consequential benefits. It was pleaded that the appellant was appoint as Patwari on 19.5.1992 in the category of Ex- Serviceman. His date of birth is 24.6.1944. His name was not included in the seniority list dated 31.2.1992 of the Patwaris of District Kapurthala. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 Palla Singh was also appointed from category of Ex-Serviceman as Patwari on 19.5.1992. Respondent No. 3 has been wrongly shown senior to the appellant and also promoted as Kanungo by order dated 31.5.1993. Before instituting the suit, necessary notice was given to the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 80 CPC. Respondent No. 3 filed the written statement. It was pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit. The plaintiff has not served any notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it was stated that he had joined earlier to plaintiff and as such has promotion order is legal and valid and binding on the plaintiff. It was further stated that he is senior. He has rightly been shown senior in the joint seniority list. Since the plaintiff never challenged the seniority list, as such he is estopped from challenging it now. Defendants No. 1 and 2 also filed the written statement and took the same stand as defendant No. 3. The plaintiff filed replication denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaintiff. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-

(3.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction prayed for OPP.