ANAT RAM Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.2 Anat Ram is appellant before this Court. He has lost before the learned First Appellate Court. The plaintiff Hardeep Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to promotion to the post of Supervisor in the Water Supply Department of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar being senior to defendant No.2 Anat Ram. He also sought permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No.1 from giving the charge of supervisor to defendant No.2.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff was only Mechanist Composite which was a trade different than fitter and plumber and that there are separate seniority list of plumbers and fitters and, therefore, the plaintiff was not considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor from the date when defendant No.2 has been so promoted.

(3.) The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the Municipal Corporation had not been able to prove that only a plumber could be promoted as a Supervisor in place of fitter ignoring the seniority. It was also noticed that the rule for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. Since the plaintiff was senior to defendant No.2, therefore, he was entitled to promotion in preference to defendant No.2. It was further noticed that the plaintiff was a Mechanist Composite and had been appointed as a fitter and had served the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar as a fitter for about 27 years. Once he was appointed as a fitter and worked on the aforesaid post for long time, then by any stretch of imagination, his claim for further promotion to the post of Supervisor could not be rejected. The learned First Appellate Court also rejected the plea taken by the defendants that one Nirmal Singh was senior to the plaintiff and since Nirmal Singh had not been so promoted, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim any promotion. It was held that merely because of Nirmal Singh had not claimed any promotion, the plaintiff could not be denied the aforesaid right. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was consequently decreed. Shri Naveen Batra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff was not eligible for promotion to the post of Supervisor, inasmuch as, he was only a Mechanist Composite which was a trade different than the fitter and plumber. However, I find myself unable to agree with the aforesaid contention.