IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No.233 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 30, 2008 DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED ......... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RISAL SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KS Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'the DHBVNL') and is directed against the judgment of affirmance. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the revised seniority lists of Upper Division Clerks (for short 'UDC') and Assistants circulated on 2.9.2003 and 13.11.2003, respectively, were not correct and the plaintiff be declared senior as UDC as well as Assistant to all the persons who had passed their examination after 5/6.1.1977 and had completed their probation as UDC after 28.4.1978. Consequential relief of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to place Regular Second Appeal No.233 of 2008 2 all such persons as junior to the plaintiff, was also sought. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the fact that he had joined the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (presently DHBVNL) as Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') on 6.7.1972. After completing probation period, he was confirmed as LDC on 22.12.1976. He passed two papers of Departmental Accounts Examination on 19.5.1975 and was subsequently promoted as UDC (Provisional) on 1.8.1975, vide Office Order of even date. After passing all the four papers of Departmental Accounts Examination within the prescribed period/chances on 5.6.1977, his promotion as UDC was regularised on 12.8.1980 with effect from 1.8.1975 i.e. the date when the plaintiff was promoted as UDC on provisional basis. The plaintiff worked as UDC from 1.8.1975 till 10.5.1992 and was promoted as Assistant on 11.5.1992. Since then, he had been working in the same capacity. Revised seniority lists of officiating UDCs and Assistants for the period up to 31.12.1979 ending 31.5.1992 was prepared and circulated vide Office Orders dated 2.9.2003 and 13.11.2003. In the revised seniority list, the department had shown the plaintiff as UDC at Serial No.65 and as Assistant at Serial No.70. He had been shown as having joined as UDC on 27.4.1977. The plea of the plaintiff was that 27.4.1977 could not be fixed as the date of joining as UDC while adopting any criteria. The challenge, therefore, was to fixation of seniority of the plaintiff on the basis of his joining as UDC on 27.4.1977. The basis of the claim of the plaintiff was that the seniority had to be ascertained from the date of passing of Departmental Accounts Examination in full which, Regular Second Appeal No.233 of 2008 3 in this case, was 5/6.1.1977. The appellant (defendant in the suit) took the defence that the plaintiff was promoted as UDC on purely provisional basis with a stipulation that he would not be entitled to any seniority of UDC and the seniority would be determined only after passing of the Departmental Accounts Examination in full. In para-28 of the judgment rendered by the trial court, it has been noticed that the condition mentioned in Office Order dated 1.8.1975 (Exhibit P1) related to promotion of the plaintiff in relaxation of Rule 13 of the Departmental Accounts Examination. The plaintiff was promoted on provisional basis as officiating UDC with immediate effect. Note-1 appended to the Order reflected that the promotion had been ordered on provisional basis, subject to passing the remaining papers within the next four successive chances, failing which the persons mentioned in the order could be reverted to their original post. Under Note-2, it was further clarified that the provisionally promoted persons would not have any right to claim seniority in the cadre of UDC till such time they pass the Departmental Accounts Examination in full. It is not in dispute the plaintiff had passed the Departmental Accounts Examination on 5/6.1.1977. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had a right to claim seniority in the cadre of UDC from the said date i.e. 5/6.1.1977. In para-29 of the judgment rendered by the trial Court, it has been further noticed that in Office Order dated 12.8.1980 (Exhibit P3), the Regular Second Appeal No.233 of 2008 4 promotions from the post of LDC to the post of UDC, on provisional basis, were regularised with effect from the date the persons mentioned therein had actually joined as UDC in the order of their promotion. The plaintiff was shown to have been provisionally promoted on 1.8.1975. Consideration of the orders shows that the plaintiff would be deemed to have been regularised with effect from 1.8.1975. Thus, the case of the appellant-defendant to the effect that 27.4.1977 was to be taken as the date of promotion, is not established. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant on the Office Orders to the contrary has been held to be dehors the rights of the plaintiff. The issue has also been considered by the first appellate court. The appellant has not been able to substantiate from any material, order or rule to explain as to how the plaintiff was shown to have joined as UDC with effect from 27.4.1977. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute this factual position. Learned counsel for the appellant has neither been able to show perverse reading of evidence by the courts below nor has been able to bring out any substantial question of law, for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. January 30, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE