IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3869 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16th August, 2011 Ram Nath … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Karam Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff having lost in two rounds of litigation has approached this Court by preferring present regular second appeal. A suit for declaration was filed by the appellant-plaintiff praying that he had joined the office of respondent-defendants as a Beldar. It was further pleaded that by ignoring him his junior was promoted as a Driver on 4th December, 2002 and thus, there has been a breach of seniority-cum-merit and the appellant-plaintiff be granted retrospective promotion from the date junior to him was promoted. It was pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff that he joined the office of respondent-defendants on 14th May, 1977 as a Beldar. His services were regularized on 13th October, 1983. Considering his good service record, he was promoted as a Cleaner on 1st May, 1998 and since then he was performing the job of a Road Roller Driver and also the Driver of jeeps and other vehicles of the department. A grievance Regular Second Appeal No.3869 of 2010 (O&M) was made that one Ram Kishan, who was appointed on 15th October, 1987 and was junior to the appellant-plaintiff, was promoted as a Driver with effect from 4th December, 2002 ignoring the rights of the appellant- plaintiff. The averments made by appellant-plaintiff in the suit were denied by the respondent-defendant-Department. The Courts below have non-suited the appellant-plaintiff by giving following findings: (a) That Ram Kishan was promoted on 4th December, 2002, whereas the suit was filed on 28th March, 2008. It was held that the suit was filed after a delay of about six years, and therefore, it was time barred. (b) That there is only one post of Driver in the office of respondent-defendants, on which promotion was given to Ram Kishan. The appellant-plaintiff had not impleaded Ram Kishan as a party/defendant to the suit. The Court held that in case the appellant-plaintiff was to be promoted, as a necessary consequence of his order of promotion Ram Kishan had to be reverted. Therefore, Ram Kishan was a necessary party and the suit was dismissed for non- impleadment of the necessary party. (c) Lastly, the Court held that Ram Kishan was promoted on 4th December, 2002 and the appellant-plaintiff only obtained a driving licence Ex.P2 on 3rd June, 2004. Therefore, when Ram Kishan was promoted, the appellant was not having a driving licence which is a necessary condition for eligibility. Thus, the appellant-plaintiff being non-eligible on the day 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3869 of 2010 (O&M) when his junior, i.e. Ram Kishan was promoted, could not assail the promotion of his junior. Mr. Karam Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has stated that no specific issue was framed regarding limitation and thus, the courts below could not have non-suited the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. I have perused the judgments of the courts below. Both the courts below, while deciding issue No.3 as to whether the appellant- plaintiff has any cause of action to file the present suit or not, have considered the date when cause of action accrued to the appellant- plaintiff and have stated that there is a delay of about six years on the part of appellant-plaintiff in approaching the Court. Hence, no fault can be found with the well reasoned judgments rendered by both the Courts below. Thus, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellant- plaintiff, especially when no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised during the course of arguments for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 16, 2011 rps 3