RSA No. 3250 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3250 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2011 The Punjab State through Commissioner, Ferozepur and others ……Appellants Versus Subhash Abrol …….Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the appellants. Mr. P.K. Goklany, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 16.09.2009, passed a decree for declaration, whereby the defendants- appellants (herein referred as ‘the defendants’) were directed to consider the plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as ‘the plaintiff’) for the post of Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 21.10.2000 within the period of three months from the passing of the order and release the consequential benefits to him, if he is found entitled thereto. The defendants preferred an appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 29.04.2010. As such, this regular second appeal has been filed. The admitted facts are that though the post of Superintendent Grade-I was not sanctioned, yet the plaintiff has been working as such w.e.f. 1 RSA No. 3250 of 2010 (O&M) 21.10.2000. As such, he has claimed his seniority to the post of Superintendent Grade-I from 21.10.2000. On the other hand, the defendants admit that though the post of Superintendent Grade-I might be lying vacant on 21.10.2000, but the same was sanctioned w.e.f. 01.04.2001. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff was promoted to the said post on 23.05.2003, which is not justifiable at all. At the maximum, the plaintiff could be promoted from the date when the post was sanctioned. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel has not objected to the promotion of the plaintiff from 01.04.2001 instead of 21.10.2000. Having scrutinized the impugned judgments, both appear to be well reasoned and well founded and have been passed on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, as led by the parties. Thus, while considering totality of the circumstances,this Court could make modification to the extent that the plaintiff should be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 01.04.2001 with all consequential benefits accruing therefrom. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the present case. Hence, with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment, the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the appellants-defendants are directed to consider the case of the plaintiff within three months from today, failing which, the consequences would follow. (A.N.Jindal) December 12, 2011 Judge ajp 2