STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KEWAL DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1992 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 16.10.1974 and 5.2.1976 by virtue of which defendants No. 2 to 5 and defendants No. 6 to 8 were promoted as Chief Inspectors, respectively by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, were illegal, ultra vires and against the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952 and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to all the benefits i.e. arrear of pay and allowances from the date of his promotion till 9.11.1979, when he was promoted as Chief Welfare Inspector, stands decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff was appointed as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways on 1.6.1955, and thereafter was absorbed in the Haryana State. Prior to his allocation to Haryana, he was promoted as Inspector on 1.6.1962 on the basis of seniority -cum -merit. The plaintiff claimed that he discharged his duties diligently and to the satisfaction of his officers. He even earned appreciation letter and good reports from his officers. He was never conveyed any adverse report.

(3.) APPELLANT /defendant took preliminary objection that the suit was time barred, and also that the civil Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also the case set up by the defendant/appellant that the suit in present form was not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that defendant No. 5 was promoted as Inspector prior to the plaintiff. Similarly, defendant No. 2 was senior to the plaintiff, although he was promoted as Inspector after the plaintiff. It was also the case of the defendant/appellant that the service record and performance of duty by plaintiff/respondent was not satisfactory. It was pleaded that there was adverse entry in his ACR, which was conveyed to him. The positive case set up was that the case of the plaintiff was considered for promotion on the basis of his seniority, but he was not found fit for promotion as Chief Inspector and, therefore, was ignored and his juniors were promoted on the basis of seniority -cum -merit. It was admitted by the defendant/appellant that the representations were made by the plaintiff/respondent against the orders impugned and the same were rejected after due consideration vide letter dated 29.5.1979. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was duly informed about the said orders by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, under whom he was working.