YOGINDERPAUL ABROL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby, the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was accepted thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Restorer in 1952 and thereafter, promoted as a Clerk in the Museum Department in 1953. He was confirmed as a Clerk on November, 1956. It is thereafter, he was temporarily promoted as Gallery Assistant in November 1967 and thereafter, was confirmed to the post of Gallery Assistant, though without his consent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the order of his confirmation to the post of Gallery Assistant has been solely made to deprive him from his promotion to the post of Superintendent/Administrative Officer, hence the present suit for declaration that the impugned order dated May 28, 1982, changing the cadre of the plaintiff from Clerical to Technical is illegal and is liable to be set aside. By way of consequential relief, he prayed that he be treated as an Assistant/Accountant from 1967 and then promoted as Superintendent/Administrative Officer and given all the rights, privilege of seniority, salaries etc. with a further mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant him all such rights, benefits and privileges as per the declaration sought.

(3.) Defendants in the written statement stated that the plaintiff was confirmed as a Clerk in the year 1956. He was appointed as a Gallery Assistant on the basis of a decree in the Civil Suit and now he has also been confirmed as Gallery Assistant alongwith other officials of the department by virtue of his seniority in the cadre of Gallery Assistant. The plaintiff has tendered 15 years service of Gallery Assistant. As regards promotion as Superintendent/Administrative Officer, it was alleged that the plaintiff had claimed for promotion against this post during the execution of decree dated 27.10.1973, but his claim was thrown out. Thus, he has no claim to the post of Administrative Officer before his appointment as Superintendent. It was further stated that the post of Superintendent was filled up through direct recruitment. It Was further stated that the post of Gallery Assistant was in higher grade as compared to the post of Assistant at the time when the plaintiff was promoted as Gallery Assistant. This way, he had no claim on the post of Assistant/Superintendent. It was again highlighted in the written statement that it is in pursuance of the decision of the Civil Court that the plaintiff was appointed as Gallery Assistant.