IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 121 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION : 09.04.2008 Surinder Nath Juneja .... APPELLANT Versus The Haryana State and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * This is a plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal. Initially, vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.1991, his suit for declaration was decreed by the trial court and the impugned seniority list dated 6.8.1966 was held to be illegal, against the principles of natural justice and not binding and operative on the rights of the plaintiff, and was held liable to be modified or amended so as to fix the seniority of the plaintiff with effect from 28.9.1959, the date on which his name had been recommended to the Department by the Punjab Service Selection Board, placing him senior to defendants No.3 to 7. However, in appeal filed by the State, the judgment and decree, passed by the trial court was set aside by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.8.1993, while deciding issue No.2, regarding limitation, in favour of the defendants and holding that suit of the RSA No. 121 of 1994 -2- plaintiff itself was barred by time. The first appellate court, while reversing the judgment of the trial court and recording the finding on issue No.2 in favour of the defendants, observed as under : “9. After going through the evidence on the file I do not find any substance in the argument of the counsel for the respondent No.1. In the above said case the seniority list was, no doubt, prepared in 1971 but the appellant was thereafter given proforma promotion on or about August 7, 1973 and it was the impugned order dated 28.4.1982 which effected his rights of seniority. In the case in hand the seniority list was published in the year 1966. Plaintiff immediately felt aggrieved with the disturbance of his seniority in that list. He did file a representation challenging the correctness of that seniority list. So, the cause of action accrued to him firstly and finally on 6.8.1966 when the seniority list was circulated. No doubt, the representation made by the plaintiff in the year 1966 was not decided but thereafter the plaintiff kept silent for 18 years. He filed the second representation in the year 1984 which was rejected by the department in the year 1985 holding it to be time barred. There is no law providing the extension of limitation on account of representation and the decision thereon. Since the seniority list adversely effecting the seniority of the plaintiff was published in the year 1966, the cause of RSA No. 121 of 1994 -3- action commenced to him with the publication of the seniority list and not with the rejection of the representation in the year 1985. .... Since the seniority of the plaintiff was disturbed with the publication of the seniority list circulated vide memo dated 6.8.1966, the plaintiff should have filed a suit within 3 years from that date. The suit filed in the year 1985 is clearly out of limitation.” Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first appellate court has erred in law as well as fact, while reversing the finding on issue No.2 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation, particularly when the representation filed by the appellant against the impugned seniority list was pending, which was ultimately considered and decided in the year 1985 and the suit was filed on 15.4.1985. Learned counsel submits that the cause of action to file the suit accrued to the plaintiff, when his representation was finally rejected in the year 1985, therefore, the suit filed by him on 15.4.1985 was well within limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath Sharma v. Union of India and others 1989 (4) SLR 234. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that undisputedly as per the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court, the seniority list was prepared and circulated in the year 1966 and thereafter, on 7.8.1973, the plaintiff himself was given promotion RSA No. 121 of 1994 -4- on the basis of the said seniority list and in spite of that, the seniority list was not challenged. Learned counsel submits that the cause of action accrued to the appellant-plaintiff firstly, when the seniority list was finalised and circulated in the year 1966 and thereafter in the year 1973, when promotions were made according to the said seniority list. Learned counsel submits that merely because the appellant made representation in the year 1967 against the seniority list circulated in the year 1966 and kept silent for 18 years, the period of limitation could not be extended on the ground that in the year 1985, his representation was rejected being barred by time. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment, as cited by learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the said judgment was given in difference circumstances in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal, as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Undisputedly, seniority in this case was finalised and circulated in the year 1966. In the seniority list, the appellant was shown at serial No. 38, whereas the contesting defendants No. 3 to 6 were shown at serial No. 35, 32, 34 and 37, respectively. This was done because initially, name of the appellant- plaintiff was recommended to the Chief Engineer, Capital Project, Chandigarh, by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, on 28.9.1958. When he was not adjusted in the said department, then his name was recommended to the Chief Engineer, Punjab Public Works Department RSA No. 121 of 1994 -5- ( B&R Branch), where he joined on 20.11.1959. The seniority list was prepared on the basis of the date of joining the service, and it was finalised in the year 1966, after hearing objections of all the parties. In my opinion, if the appellant was aggrieved, then he should have challenged the seniority list at that time by filing the civil suit or subsequently in the year 1973 when promotions were made in accordance with the said seniority list. Thus, in my view, the suit filed in the year 1985 was rightly dismissed as time barred. Merely because the representation was filed and thereafter, the appellant remained silent for 16 years, the period of limitation for filing a suit could not have been extended. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, now every thing has been settled and the appellant-plaintiff as well as the respondents have already retired from service. Therefore, at this stage, in my opinion, no interference is required in the matter. Dismissed. April 09, 2008 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE