Dismissed

Kashmir Singh v. Punjabi University and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2009RSA/2509/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses two matters: first, condoning a 15-day delay in filing a second appeal due to counsel's fault under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Second, it dismisses a second appeal where the appellant challenged the final seniority list of laboratory attendants after a department merger, finding the lower courts' evidence-based findings unshaken.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; Second appeal dismissed with no merit.

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjabi University and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2009

Kashmir Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Punjabi University, Patiala and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

C.M. No. 7071-C of 2007

¶15

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal.

¶16

It has been averred in the application that the plaintiff/appellant had approached the learned counsel for the appellant on 14.2.2007 for filing the present appeal i.e. within period of limitation. However, due to lapse on the part of the office of the learned counsel, delay of 15 days had occurred in filing the present appeal.

¶17

It is settled law that for the fault of counsel, party should not be allowed to suffer. Consequently, I find sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

The application is allowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007

¶22

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 29.4.2005 and 7.11.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed.

¶23

The plaintiff filed a suit on the plea that he was regularly appointed on 17.1.1992 as Laboratory Attendant by the Department of Physics and since then he continues to be working in the Department of Physics of defendant-University. Defendant No. 2 was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in the Astronomy and Space Science Department, which was altogether a separate wing from the Department of Physics. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the seniority of the Laboratory Attendants of Department of Physics was maintained separately from Laboratory Attendants of Department of Astronomy and Space Science.

¶24

He claimed that the employees were of different cadres.

¶25

The plaintiff also claimed that the Astronomy and Space Science Department was merged in the Department of Physics and tentative seniority list was prepared on 4.1.2001 against which he filed objections. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No. 2 could not be shown to be senior in tentative seniority list.

¶26

The plaintiff further claimed that without taking any action on his representation, respondent/defendant No. 2 was promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant by ignoring and superseding the plaintiff, who claimed himself to be senior.

¶27

The suit was contested by the defendant/respondent by admitting that the plaintiff joined the Physics Department on 17.1.1992.

¶28

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

The Syndicate of the University decided on 28.2.1998 to merge the Astronomy and Space Science Department of the University with the Physics Department and the plaintiff on 23.4.1999 was transferred to the Department of Computer Centre being surplus in the Physics Department.

¶31

Though it was admitted that earlier seniority of the Space Science Department was being maintained separately but that was till its merger with Physics Department.

¶32

The seniority list is said to have been finalised on 2.4.2002. On the basis of final seniority, defendant No. 2 was promoted. It was denied that the principles of natural justice were violated. It is also not in dispute that the seniority is to be counted from the date of joining. It is not disputed that respondent/defendant No. 2 joined on 1.12.1986, though in different department. The merger of the departments was done by the Syndicate of the University i.e. competent authority and, thus, no fault can be found with seniority list declaring of defendant No. 2 to be senior to the plaintiff as admittedly he was appointed six years prior to the plaintiff.

¶33

The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant primarily raised a plea that the representation made by the appellant against fixation of tentative seniority was not decided by the competent authority.

¶34

The plea raised has been rejected by the learned Courts below in view of the admission of the plaintiff that representation against tentative seniority list was rejected and decision was taken by the Syndicate on 10.10.2001. The learned Courts below further held, on appreciation of evidence, that the objections to the tentative seniority list

¶35

R.S.A. No. 2509 of 2007 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

and final seniority list were duly considered by the defendant-Univerity and were rejected. The learned Courts further held that the seniority was fixed according to the date of joining of employees and, thus, by no means, the plaintiff/appellant could be held to be senior to the respondent No. 2 having been appointed six years earlier.

¶38

The findings have been recorded by the learned Courts below on the apprecision of evidence brought on record, therefore, the technical contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the concurrent findings, cannot be accepted, specially when the representation made by appellant stands rejected.

¶39

This appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, which may call for adjudication by this Court.

¶40

No merit.

¶41

Dismissed.

¶42

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶43

January 12, 2009 R.S.

Kashmir Singh v. Punjabi University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Singh v. Punjabi University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Town Planner Officer Vs Surinder Singh and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Umed Singh

Chhater Singh and Ors. Vs Zile Singh and Ors.

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs Basant Nath

S D O Uhbvnl and Ors. Vs M/S Sehjad Trading Co.

Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. Vs Vikram Singh