Dismissed

B.S.Rai v. Raghbir Singh Sandhu etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2012RSA/2955/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal contesting inter se seniority between a Chief Inspector and a co-worker. Ruling that recruitment merit governs seniority under the specific service rules, the court held that the appellant's lower merit score prevailed over the argument for seniority based on continuous service.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were upheld.

B.S.Rai Vs Raghbir Singh Sandhu etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No. 2955 of 1987

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 2955 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.01.2012

¶5

B.S. Rai, Chief Inspector, Office of the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways (Transport Department), Jallandhar

¶6

……… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ranbir Singh & others

¶9

………… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina

¶12

Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.

¶16

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶17

The only issue involved in this appeal relates to inter se seniority between the appellant and plaintiff-respondent No.1. The method of fixation of seniority is governed by the Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules, 1977, which reads as under :-

¶18

“The seniority inter se of members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service.

¶19

Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board or other recruiting authority as the case may be shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority.”

¶20

The appellant admits that when the recruitment was made by the

¶21

Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, he was placed lower in merit than

¶22

RSA No. 2955 of 1987

¶23

-2-

¶24

the plaintiff-respondent No.1. If that be so then in terms of 1^st proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules, the order of merit determined by the Board would prevail. This merit would determine inter se seniority and continue to be reflected in the promotional posts.

¶25

No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The facts are not disputed with regard to the inter se merit position determined by the Board, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. No other ground is pressed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decrees of the Courts below are upheld.

¶26

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶27

05.01.2012 'sp'

B.S.Rai v. Raghbir Singh Sandhu etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Rai v. Raghbir Singh Sandhu etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Kaur and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner etc.

Baljit Singh Vs Managiing Director Patiala Pb.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jag Parvesh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Baljinder Singh Hundal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Haim Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.