OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the execution petition seeking for implementation of the decree passed by the trial Court on 17.05.1991. The suit had been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to selection grade admissible to 15% JBT Teachers to be reckoned from the date of confirmation that was 01.11.1955 along with all benefits and privileges of selection grade and for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer (BPEO) in the order of his seniority from the date when his juniors were promoted and decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay all the arrears as selection grade benefits and grant subsequent promotion to the plaintiff on the basis of his seniority from the day when his juniors were promoted. The trial Court while granting the decree directed that the reliefs be granted to the plaintiff in the manner sought for and that they were to be worked out within a period of two months from the date of decree passed on 17.05.1991. It appears that there had been an appeal filed by the Government against the judgment in C.A. No.30 of 1991 but the appeal was dismissed on 09.09.1993.

(2.) Before the Executing Court the decree holder was seeking for several reliefs. One was for making a claim for Rs. 4,32,146/- as representing the arrears of pay and seeking for attachment of the same.

(3.) The decree-holder had still a complaint that in independent proceedings brought before this Court in C.W.P. No.5794 of 1987 titled "Dharam Chand Jindal Vs. State of Punjab", the High Court had directed the Education Department to prepare a seniority list on the basis of the confirmation of the respective employees. It appears that the decree holder himself had filed the writ petition in C.W.P. No.6952 of 1988 and this Court had passed a direction that the seniority list should be released. The decree-holder would contend that the compliance of the High Court's order was made by the State setting out the fact that the date of confirmation of the Head Teacher promoted as Block Primary Education Officer in July, 1979 was 20.10.1956 and not what was raised by the State in defence. The decree holder has some other objections as well. All these contentions were traversed in an additional affidavit filed by Harnam Singh Bajaj, District Education Officer. Adverting to the direction in the decree that the decree holder must be placed at seniority No.1 instead of seniority No.13, one Sham Sunder, who was at Sr. No.1 in seniority list had been promoted as Block Primary Education Officer on 05.02.1986 and on the same date the plaintiff was also promoted as Block Primary Education Officer. The State was pointing out to the fact that the plaintiff's demand was that he should be promoted w.e.f. 04.07.1979 itself, which was not possible in view of the fact that Raghu Nandan Prashad and 8 other persons already referred to had all been confirmed prior to date of confirmation of the petitioner and they had themselves not secured promotions earlier. The plaintiff himself cannot seek for promotion on any date prior to the date when Sham Sunder, who was admittedly a senior to the plaintiff was promoted. The claim for further promotion as demanded by the plaintiff was, therefore, shown to be untenable.