Dismissed

Joginder Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2011RSA/1113/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by a retired employee seeking declaration of promotion and pensionary benefits with retrospective effect. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' finding that the time limit to challenge the seniority list expired, and finding no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no substantive relief granted to the appellant.

Joginder Lal Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Regular Second Appeal No. 1113 of 2010 (O&M).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

...

¶5

Date of Decision: March 14, 2011.

¶6

Regular Second Appeal No. 1113 of 2010 (O&M).

Joginder Lal

... Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

Present: Mr.Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶16

Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶17

-.-

¶18

MOHINDER PAL, J.

¶19

Joginder Lal (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal

¶20

aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶22

-2-

¶23

Regular Second Appeal No. 1113 of 2010 (O&M).

¶24

have gone through the records of the case.

¶25

The claim of the plaintiff-appellant, who was an employee of the respondent-Department and had been lastly posted as Electrician Instructor at Industrial Training Institute, Ludhiana, and retired on 31.12.2000 after attaining the age of superannuation, was that he was entitled to be promoted as Group Instructor with retrospective effect from the date when his juniors were promoted as such. The further claim of the plaintiffappellant was that he was entitled to the consequential pensionary benefits along with interest.

¶26

The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording evidence led by the parties and hearing their counsel, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that as per the seniority list dated 7.5.1998, the name of the plaintiff-appellant figured at Serial No.234, whereas the promotions had been made upto Serial No.178. The plaintiff did not challenge the said seniority list dated 7.5.1998. The plaintiffappellant Joginder Lal (P.W.1), in his cross-examination, admitted that he had filed the instant suit after his retirement and that he had received all the retiral benefits without any protest. It is also a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that promotions had been made as per seniority list dated 7.5.1998 and the persons who were at serial No.141 to 144 were promoted on 3.12.1998

¶27

-3-

¶28

Regular Second Appeal No. 1113 of 2010 (O&M).

¶29

and the person who was shown at serial No.178 was promoted on 3.12.1998. The plaintiff was not promoted as his name was at serial No.234 of the said seniority list. The time for filing objections/representations against the seniority list dated 7.5.1998 was specified upto 20.7.1998. However, no representation against the said seniority list was filed by the plaintiff within the stipulated period. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his entitlement to get the relief claimed in this case.

¶30

Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit.

¶31

March 14, 2011. ak

¶32

( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE

Joginder Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Municipal Corpn. Faridabad Vs Didar Singh

Gurdev Singh Vs Bhan Singh

Sohan Singh Vs Tara Singh & Other

Manbhawati and Ors. Vs Chotte Lal and Anr.

Sohan Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Others

Savita and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others