Dismissed

Hy State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Dharam Paul and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Mar 2014RSA/2358/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the second appeal filed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board challenging the decrees that granted retrospective promotion, additional benefits, and consequential salary arrears to an employee who claimed parity with a junior colleague.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; lower court decrees were upheld in toto.

Hy State Agricultural Marketing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2014

¶5

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dharam Paul and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, defendant-Board has approached this Court by way of present appeal.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that in his suit for declaration, plaintiff-respondent took the averment that he was a regular Kumar Amit employee of defendant No.1 and he was initially appointed as Fee 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶21

Collector in the Market Committee, Ellenabad on 29.9.1970 in the scale of 110-225 and the pay scale for the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector was revised to 140-3000 w.e.f. 14.1.1971 and further revised to 160-400 w.e.f. 21.3.1979 and defendant No.2 was appointed as Auction Recorder in the Market Committee, Narwana on 15.11.1968 and he was transferred to market Committee, Safidon on 18.7.1970 but the defendant was junior to the plaintiff as the defendant was promoted as fee Collector on 15.11.1972 as against the appointment of plaintiff as Fee Collector on 29.7.1970 and the pay scale of Fee Collector and Mandi Supervisor in the service book of the Board was also the same for all intents and purposes with common seniority and all such posts were equivalent with the common cadre and the plaintiff was promoted as an Accountant in the pay scale of 5000-7850 vide order No.Admn.II99/1730A/75182-280 dated 14.12.1999 and plaintiff and joined his duties as as Accountant on 16.12.1999 and the plaintiff came to know during September, 2005 that his junior Shri Kali Ram Naidu (defendant No.2) was promoted as Accountant w.e.f. 4.1.1971 vide order dated 8.5.2003 as his junior Shri Balwant Rai Fee Collector, M.C. Radaur was promoted as an Accountant from 4.1.1971. So that plaintiff is also entitled to get the date of his promotion as non selection post of Accountant preponed from 16.12.1999 to 4.1.1971 viz at par with the date of promotion of his junior Shri Kali Ram Naidu (defendant No.2) and the plaintiff has submitted representation dated 17.10.2005 for preponement of the date of his promotion as an

¶22

Kumar AmitAccountant and further subsequent promotions but no decision has 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

been taken till now despite service of legal notice dated 16.3.2006. This further suggest the discrimination and denial of justice to the plaintiff .

¶26

Written statement was filed and in the written statement certain preliminary objections about non maintainability of the suit in the present form, suit being time barred, have been taken. On merits, it has been stated that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought as the defendant No.2 was promoted in compliance of Civil suit No. 389 of 12.11.1998 and the plaintiff never raised the issue when the promotion of Shri Hardeep Singh, was assigned to Sh. Balwant Rai whereas representation on 17.6.1996 for promoting him at par with Sh. Balwant Rai. So he is not entitled to relief at this belated stage, so the present suit being devoid of merits should be dismissed.

¶27

On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

¶28

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction from 14.12.1999 to 4.1.1971 and retrospective promotions with consequential benefits as prayed for?OPP

¶29

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form nor the plaintiff has locus standi to file the same?OPD

¶30

3. Relief ”

¶31

In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the

¶32

parties led their evidence. After hearing both the parties and going Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has duly proved his case. Consequently, suit was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.2.2009. Plaintiff was held entitled for the service benefits, he was claiming. Dissatisfied, defendant-Board filed its first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.1.2010. Hence this second appeal at the hands of the plaintiffs.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that plaintiff was claiming parity with his junior namely Kali Ram Naidu-defendant No.2. He further submits that no doubt defendant No.2 was promoted prior to the plaintiff-respondent, despite being junior, however, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled for any arrears of salary because Kali Ram also gave up his claim for arrears before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.2.2003, at the time of hearing of civil appeal bearing 1585 of 2003 (Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Kali Ram Naidu and another). He concluded by submitting that since both the learned courts below have failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter, impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that appellant-defendant-Board acted in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner, while promoting the junior of the plaintiff, thereby ignoring his better and preferential claim. He further submits Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M) 5

¶39

that plaintiff-respondent was illegally denied his right of consideration, because of which the learned courts below rightly decreed his suit. He concluded by submitting that since the learned courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact and there was no question of law involved, appeal was liable to be dismissed. He prays for dismissal of the suit.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

¶41

Entitlement of plaintiff-respondent for promotion, from the date when his junior Kali Ram was promoted, was not in dispute. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff-respondent Dharam Pal was not entitled for arrears, because his junior Kali Ram-respondent No.2 has given up his claim for arrears before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the time of decision of civil appeal No. 1585 of 2003 filed by the present appellant, has been found misconceived. Bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will make it crystal clear that any concession given by his junior-Kali Ram before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, giving up his claim for arrears will not be ipso facto binding on the plaintiff-respondent. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶43

¶44

to conclude that learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing their respective impugned judgments and decrees and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶45

Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, recorded his own findings after reappreciation of the facts and evidence available on record. The relevant observations made in para 9 and 10 of the judgment, read as under:-

¶46

“ In this connection, it has also been stated by DW1 in his cross-examination aforesaid that it was correct that an another employee namely Fakir Chand Gupta had also been made Accountant at par with defendant No.2-Kali Ram w.e.f. 4.1.1971 and that they had also been given further promotions in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pursuance of which he had been made E.O.-cum-Secretary w.e.f. 29.7.2008. Needless to say that since the respondent No.1-plaintiff has already been held as entitled to be promoted at par with the defendant No.2 prior to him, so he also becomes entitled to the aforesaid two promotions i.e. As an Assistant Secretary and then as E.O-cum-Secretary prior to the defendant No.2.”

¶47

Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussions, it becomes crystal clear that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has successfully established his entitlement for promoting him with the further promotions including the E.O.-cumSecretary at par with defendant No.2 prior to the defendant No.2 in the relevant pay scale applicable to the aforesaid posts.

¶48

Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶50

¶51

Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1 becomes absolutely meritless and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with costs. As such, the trial court judgment and decree is hereby upheld in toto. Accordingly, the respondent No.1-plaintiff is hereby ordered to be promoted w.e.f. 4.1.1971 as an Accountant at par with the defendant No.2 prior to the defendant No.2 being senior to him with the further promotions from time to time and stage to stage at par with the defendant No.2 and prior to the defendant No.2 in the relevant pay scales applicable to the aforesaid posts alongwith all the consequential service benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum keeping in view the present rates of interest in the nationalized banks, on the arrears of salary, from the date of accrual till the realization of the decretal amount.”

¶52

A bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments

¶53

and decrees would show that learned courts below discussed each and every aspect of the matter, before rightly appreciating the true facts as well as legal position of the case. Once the entitlement of plaintiff-respondent was not in dispute, there was no justification as to why he would not be entitled for the service benefits including promotion, arrears of salary and interest thereon. That is what has been rightly granted by the learned courts below. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned courts below proceeded on a factually correct and legally justified approach, while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶54

Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

RSA No. 2358 of 2010 (O&M)

¶56

¶57

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned judgments passed by both the learned courts below. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

¶58

No other argument was raised.

¶59

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

¶60

Resultantly, the instant second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶61

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶62

10.3.2014 AK Sharma

¶63

Kumar Amit 2014.05.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hy State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Dharam Paul and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hy State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Dharam Paul and Anr.

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

State of Punjab Vs Malkiat Singh

(O&M) Chanan Singh Vs Jhanji Ram

Wazir Singh Vs Ram Gopal

Punjab State Electricity Board, Vs Yash Paul Gupta etc.

Batala Co-Op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwant Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.