Dismissed

State of Pb and Others v. Rameshwar Mal Singla

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2011CR/5876/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision, the Punjab and Haryana high court upheld an order that a promotion decree benefiting an employee was not satisfied by subsequent hiring of juniors, thus directing proper consideration based on established seniority principles over officiating experience.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; decree held not satisfied; authority directed to consider respondent based on statutory seniority rules.

State of Pb and Others Vs Rameshwar Mal Singla — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.R.No.5876 of 2002

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R.No.5876 of 2002 Date of decision:01.02.2011

¶5

State of Punjab and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rameshwar Mal Singla and another

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶13

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The State of Punjab, impugns an order dated 14.7.2002, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala, rejecting its objections.

¶16

Respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to promotion as Accountant and then to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer in preference to his juniors. The trial court decreed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to consider the case of respondent no.1 for promotion as Accountant as per the seniority list of Clerks, from the date his juniors were promoted. The operative part of the decree passed in favour of respondent no.1 reads as follows: -

¶17

“In view of the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is set aside and

¶18

C.R.No.5876 of 2002

¶19

-2-

¶20

this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion as accountant as per the seniority in the list of Clerks from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits and then to consider him for promotion to the post of ETO within period of 3 months form the date of communication of the order. In view of the peculiar circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Original judgment be carrected accordingly. Lower court records be returned. Papers be considered to the Record Room.”

¶21

A Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Punjab was dismissed.

¶22

Respondent no.1 thereafter filed an execution petition. The petitioners put in appearance and prayed that the execution petition be dismissed as satisfied, as an order has been passed rejecting the claim of respondent no.1 for promotion. The executing court rejected the prayer and directed the petitioners to implement the decree in letter and spirit.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the claim of respondent no.1 for promotion from the date his juniors namely Sukhdev Singh, Karnail Singh and Bal Kishan Kapila were promoted was considered and rejected the decree stands satisfied. The petitioner's juniors Sukhdev Singh, Karnail Singh and Bal Kishan Kapila were promoted to the post of Inspector and Excise and Taxation Officer before respondent no.1. The mere fact that they were subsequently reverted, does not entitle respondent no.1 to assert that he should be promoted from the date they were promoted. It is further

¶24

C.R.No.5876 of 2002

¶25

-3-

¶26

submitted that instructions dated 11.09.1961, clearly provide that experience of officiation on a higher post, entitles a junior to preference in matters of promotion.

¶27

Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that there is no service rule, that entitles a junior who may have officiated on a higher post, to claim precedence over his senior. The clarification, has no force of law as has been held in Iqbal Singh Versus the State of Punjab , RSJ 1990(2) 118 and Lal Chand Singla Versus State of Punjab, 2001(1) SCT, 969. It is further submitted that as promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and as respondent no.1 is admittedly senior to Sukhdev Singh, Karnail Singh and Bal Kishan Kapila, he should be promoted to the post of Accountant and then to ETO, from the date they were promoted.

¶28

I have heard counsel for the parties and tend to agree with the submissions made by counsel for respondent no.1, that the decree has not been satisfied. It is true that the petitioners have considered and rejected respondent no.1's claim for promotion but this rejection is based upon a clarification dated 11.09.1961 that is neither part of service rules or of any instructions. It is an established position in law that a junior officiating on a higher post cannot steal a march over his senior on the basis of having experience of officiating on a higher post. Reference in this regard may be made to Iqbal Singh Versus the State of Punjab (supra) , and Lal Chand Singla Versus State of Punjab (supra). An authority vested with the power to determine disputes with

¶29

C.R.No.5876 of 2002

¶30

-4-

¶31

respect to seniority or promotion etc. is required to decide these disputes in accordance with the statutory rules and binding precedents. Disregard for statutory rules and binding precedents render such a consideration illegal, perverse and arbitrary. The executing court rightly rejected the plea that the judgment and decree under execution has been satisfied.

¶32

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶33

01.02.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE

State of Pb and Others v. Rameshwar Mal Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Pb and Others v. Rameshwar Mal Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Sharma and Ors. Vs Shanti and Ors.

Banwari & Ors. Vs Ram Sanehi & Ors.

Dharampal & Ors. Vs Ram Bhagat

Hem Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ved Parkash Vs Gram Panchayat Vill Deegh

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Amarjit Kaur Bhullar