DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case which has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff himself the question involved is a short one. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be noticed in the first instance in order to appreciate the controversy between the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit by averring that he was appointed as a Clerk in Nov., 1961 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant in Aug., 1969. He earned all increments and his work and conduct was found satisfactory throughout. The plaintiff was communicated adverse vague remarks vide Memo Nos. CPH/E dated 30.3.1970 for the period from 8.8.1969 to 31.3.1970, 14366- PH/F-III dated 31.5.1971 and 32016-PH/F-III dated 30.6.1973 and 51899-PH/E dated 17.9.1974 which according to him were illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. The aforesaid letters have been put in the service record, which according to him amounted to censure and therefore, the same was illegal and ultra vires. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that Sarvshri Jagdish Singh, Randhir Singh and Kehar Singh. were confirmed as Assistants on 3.2.1976 and Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Inderjit Sharma were confirmed, on 8.3.1976 and Harnek Singh was confirmed on 31.8.1979. The service record of the afore- mentioned persons was not good. The plaintiff made a representation dated 26.2.1976 but the same was rejected on 12.3.1976. The order of rejection as well as the order confirming the juniors was illegal and void. On the basis so the afore-mentioned averments the plaintiff sought relief in the suit to the effect that he was entitled to selection grade treating his confirmation earlier to his juniors. A decree was also claimed that the adverse remarks be held to be non-existent and that he was entitled to promotion above his juniors with all rights, benefits and privileges.

(3.) The suit was defended by the defendants. On the pleas of the parties the following issues were framed : i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to selection grade and confirmation above his juniors? OPP iii. Whether the adverse remarks conveyed to the plaintiff have no effect upon his career? OPP iv. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Vs. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD vi. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD vii. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD viii. Whether this court has no jurisdiction? OPD ix. Relief. The trial court took up issue Nos. 1 to 3 together. After examining the entire evidence, it was found that the plaintiff had been earning the annual grade increments regularly and he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. It is further the finding of the trial court that adverse remarks were only to the effect that the plaintiff was a slow worker and he was asked to improve his work. The trial court further found that the over all assessment of the work of the plaintiff was a satisfactory and it is written in his service record that he was fit to be promoted in accordance with his turn and seniority. There was no reason for the defendants to withhold the confirmation of the plaintiff when his juniors were confirmed and that there was no reason for withholding the grant of selection grade at a time when his juniors were granted the same. Adverse remarks according to the trial court were only advisory in a nature and did not in any way stand against him in his promotion. All the orders passed by the defendants were found to be illegal. The aforementioned issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Under issues No. 4 and 5 the suit was found to be maintainable and the plaintiff was held to have a cause of action because his juniors were confirmed before him. Issue Nos. 6 and 8 were given up. Under Issue No. 7 the suit was held to be within time. The trial Court consequently, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a declaration to the effect that he was entitled to confirmation with effect from the date when his juniors were confirmed. He was also held entitled to the selection grade from the date when his juniors were granted such selection grade. The orders passed by the Chief Engineer vide letters dated 12.3.79, 17.10.79, 20.6.79, 20.1.79, 23.6.79 and 31.9.1982 were held to be illegal and invalid. The plaintiff was held entitled to the privileges and arrears of pay and other benefits attached to the post which had accrued to him and which were likely to accrue in future. The state of Punjab filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court after discussing the entire matter thoroughly came to the conclusion that the findings, recorded by the trial Court were correct.