HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants, against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, whereby appeal was accepted, judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that Jaswant Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against defendants for directing the defendants to release the arrears of pay from 11.8.1987 (from the deemed promotion of Lineman) till 4.10.1994, to the plaintiff, which had wrongly been withheld by the defendants, vide impugned order dated 4.10.1994 and that the plaintiff was entitled to get the arrears of full pay and allowances for the post of Lineman for the aforesaid period. It was alleged that the plaintiff was eligible and entitled for promotion from the Post of Assistant Lineman to the post of Lineman on 11.8.1987, as per policy of defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff was ignored from promotion for the post of Lineman illegally, while other similar situated persons were promoted on 11.8.1987 from the post of Assistant Lineman to Lineman. It was alleged that plaintiff made representation to the defendants for promotion w.e.f. 11.8.1987 and also served legal notice. It was alleged that after a gap of seven years, defendants promoted plaintiff from the post of Assistant Lineman to Lineman, vide impugned order dated 4.109.1994, from the deemed dated i.e. 11.8.1987 but imposed certain illegal conditions to the effect that the plaintiff will not claim arrears of pay from the deemed date of promotion to the actual date of joining as Lineman. It was alleged that the said order dated 4.10.1994 imposing those conditions was illegal and void. It was alleged that the plaintiff was threatened and was asked by the defendants to submit affidavit to the effect that he should not claim arrears of pay from 11.8.1987 to 4.10.1994. It was alleged that this action of the defendants was illegal and void, inasmuch as plaintiff could not be deprived of the emoluments for the senior post from the date of promotion. It was accordingly prayed that defendants be directed to release the arrears of pay from 11.10.1988 to 4.10.1994 to the plaintiff, which had been wrongly withheld by the defendants vide order dated 4.10.1994.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued to respondent and records were also ordered to be summoned. It was further directed that the appeal shall be finally disposed of at the motion stage itself.