Balwant Singh Vs Pb. State Electricity Baord

Th e appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are i n appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff-Balwa n t Singh (now deceased) wa s also dismissed by the lear n ed Additional Dist r ict Judge, Gurdaspur ( hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court” ). For th e sake of convenience, the parti e s are being referred to as per t h eir status in the Ci v il Suit.

¶11

[2]. By way of present appeal, challe n ge has been laid to the judgm e nts and decrees dat e d 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 p assed by the learned Courts bel o w, whereby the d ismissal of suit for declarat i on with consequential relief of mandatory inju n ction filed at the instance of the plaintiff-Balwant Singh ( n ow deceased) was a ffirmed.

¶12

FACTS

¶13

[3]. Br i efly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab S t ate Electricity Boa r d; posted as Assistant Linem a n at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. T he plaintiff made a n application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalan d har

¶14

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

2

¶16

RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M)

¶17

Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consider a tion of his domestic conditions, the prayer of his t ransfer was allowed vide or d er dated 07.08.1991. Therea f ter, plaintiff was rel i eved from Jalandhar Circle on 3 0.08.1991 and was directed to j oin at Gurdaspur C ircle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assis t ant Lineman join e d at his place at Jalandhar and he approached the respondents/de fe ndants for permitting him to j oin at Gurdaspur, but all in v a in. Even notice dated 10.09.1991 (Ex.P-4) was also served upon the respondents/de fe ndants by the plaintiff see k ing his re-joining at Gurdas p ur, however, the same was never responded to, he n ce, the present suit for declara t ion to the effect tha t the appellant/plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now deceased) was enti t led to full pay incl u ding all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his transfer w.e.f. 3 0.08.1991 till the date he was allowed to re-join at the plac e of posting as well as seeking mandatory injunctio n for directing defendants to al l ow the plaintiff to j o in duty as Assistant Lineman. [4]. Up o n notice, respondents/defend a nt(s) appeared and filed wri t ten statement admitting the plaintiff to be regular e m ployee of Punjab State Electri c ity Board and he w as working as Assistant Line m an in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle a nd was transferred to Gurdaspur Circle. It was pl e aded that vide office order No. 4 92 dated 30.09.19 9 1, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his duty intentiona l ly and deliberately. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff w as only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, D ina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no v acancy at those stations, pla i ntiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur S ahib, however, he failed to joi n his duty. Replication was file d at the instance of t h e plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of th e parties, the learned Trial C o urt framed the foll o wing issues:-

¶18

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

3

¶20

RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M)

¶21

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entit l ed to the declaration as prayed f or? OPP

¶22

Relief.”

¶23

[6]. Th e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, ( hereinafter to be referred to as the “trial Court” ), vide its jud g ment and decree dated 20.03.1 9 96, dismissed the s u it with costs filed at the instanc e of plaintiff.

¶24

[7]. Ag g rieved thereof, the plaintiff fil e d the first appeal, which was a lso dismissed vide j udgment and decree dated 12. 0 6.1998 passed by the learned F irst Appellate Cour t . Hence, the present Regular S e cond Appeal. CONTENTION(S):

¶25

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-PLAINTIFF(S):

¶26

[8]. Im p ugning the aforementioned ju d gments and decrees passed by the Courts below, l e arned counsel for the appellan t (s) submits that the entire defence by the respond e nts/defendants in the written s tatement was to the effect tha t in terms of office o rder No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to joi n at Sri Hargobindp u r Sahib, however no such order was ever served upon him a nd, thus adverse in fe rence was required to be draw n against the defendants. [8.1]. Le a rned counsel further submits t h at the respondents/defendants e v en failed to respo n d to any of the legal notices s erved upon them by the plain t iff, whereby he repeatedly requested the responde n ts/defendants to make him joi n as Assistant Line m an at Gurdaspur in terms of th e relieving order dated 30.08.1 9 91. Learned counse l thus, submits that the impugn e d judgments and decrees passe d by the learned Co u rts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of the p laintiff was to be decreed.

¶27

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

4

¶29

RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M)

¶30

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)-DEFENDANT(S):

¶31

[9]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents/de fe ndants submits that the plea t a ken in the written statement w ith respect to the o ffice order No.492 dated 30.0 9 .1991 was duly proved on re c ord through the d eposition made by DW-1, namely, Om Parkash, Of f ice Superintendent from the office of XEN (Exec u tive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, v ide which the plain t iff was asked to join his duty a t Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Lear n ed counsel thus, s u bmits that the impugned jud g ments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings a nd evidence availa b le on record, warranting no i n terference and accordingly pra y ed for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶32

DISCUSSION AND REASONING:

¶33

[10]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as w ell as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s).

¶34

[11]. Th e only defence taken by the re s pondents/defendants in the wri t ten statement was t o the effect that the office or d er No.492 dated 30.09.1991 w as passed, whereb y the plaintiff was directed t o join at Sri Hargobindpur Sa h ib, however strang e ly, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the r e spondents/defendants. In such c ircumstances, mere oral deposi t ion made by DW- 1 Om Parkash, Office Superi n tendent from the office of X EN (Executive En g ineer), PSEB, Batala, about p assing of any office order d a ted 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreo v er, upon a perusal of the recor d , it can nowhere be found that any such office orde r was ever served upon the plain t iff, thereby directi n g him to join at Sri Harg o bindpur Sahib. In addition, the

¶35

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

5

¶37

RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M)

¶38

respondents/de fe ndants did not even respo n ded to the legal notice d a ted 10.09.1994 (Ex . P-4) served upon them by the p laintiff, whereby request was made for permitting h im to re-join the respondent-D e partment at Gurdaspur in term s of his relieving or d er dated 30.08.1991.

¶39

[12]. Fu r ther, a perusal of the judgment s and decrees passed by the lear n ed Courts below goes on to show th a t the approach adopted by respondents/de fe ndants, was not in consonance with the fundamental expositio n of law laid down b y the Hon’ble Apex Court in c a se of ‘ Gopal Krishna Ji Ketkar Vs. Mohd. Hazi Latif and others, reported as AIR 1968 SC 1413 wherein it was h eld that the party i n possession of best evidence n e eds to be produce the same be f ore the Court, if it holds fact and adverse infere n ce needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the gri e vance expressed by the plainti f f in his suit to the e ffect that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries m erit especially in t h e absence of any substantial p roof regarding office order d a ted 30.09.1991 has been served upon him. The r e levant portion of Gopal Krish n a’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder:-

¶40

“ … …..But the appellant has not pr od uced either his own accounts o r the ac c ount of the Dargah to show as to h ow the income from plot No. 134 w as de a lt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part o f the ap p ellant's duty to produce the accou n ts unless he was called upon to do so an d the onus we. upon the responde n ts to prove the case and to show t hat the Dargah was the owner of plot N o. 134. We are unable to accept this ar gu ment as correct. Even if the bur de n of proof does not lie on a part y the Co u rt may draw an adverse inferenc e if he withholds important docu me nts in h is possession which can throw li gh t on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those de siring to rely upon a certain sta te of fa ct s to withhold from the Court t he best evidence which is in th eir po s session which could throw light u pon the issues in controversy an d to rel y upon the abstract doctrine of o n us of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Lord S h aw ob s erved as follows :

¶41

"A practice has g rown up in Indian procedure of t h ose in possession of impo r tant documents or information l y ing by, trusting to the abst r act doctrine of he onus of proof, and

¶42

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶43

6

¶44

RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M)

¶45

failing. accordingly, to f urnish to the Courts the best mat e rial for its decision With re g ard to third parties, this may be ri ght enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct o f the suit but with regard t o the parties thee suit it is, in th eir Lordships' opinion, an i nversion of sound practice for t h ose desiring to rely upon a c ertain state of facts to withhold fr om the Court the written evidence in their possession w h ich would throw light upon the proposition."

¶46

[13]. As a result of aforesaid discussio n , the judgments and decrees d a ted 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the le a rned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit f o r declaration filed at the instan c e of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for a ll his service dues including p ay fixation, arrear s , pension, benefits towards sen i ority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he w as made to rejoin i n terms of the order dated 09. 0 2.1999 passed by this Court in the present appeal. T he plaintiff shall also be entitl e d for interest @ 6% per annu m on the dues payabl e to him. Decree sheet be prepar e d accordingly. [14]. Ap p eal stands allowed in th e aforesaid terms. All pen d ing application(s), i f any, shall also stand disposed o f.

¶47

(HARKESH MANUJA)

¶48

July 02, 2026 JUDGE Atik Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No

¶49

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Balwant Singh v. Pb. State Electricity Baord

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh v. Pb. State Electricity Baord

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana and Others Vs Dharampal

Const. Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Suridner Singh Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Rajwinder Kaur Vs Baljinder Singh

Shalu and Anr. Vs Rajender Kumar and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs Rajender Kumar and Ors.