R.S.A. No.4804 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4804 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 4 th APRIL, 2011 C. L. Sodhi .... Appellant Versus The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Sud, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff C. L. Sodhi who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff joined Haryana State Electricity Board (now Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.-defendant No.1) as Meter Reader/Clerk on 20.03.1975. He completed the probation period of two years on 19.03.1977 and was regularized as Meter Reader. He passed departmental accounts examination prescribed for the said post. However, he was not promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 1977 but was promoted to the said post on 19.10.1979 and joined as such on 23.10.1979. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that defendant No.3 Gian Chand was directly recruited as UDC on 03.01.1969. But he failed to pass the departmental accounts examination during the prescribed period. His services were terminated vide order dated 02.08.1974. However, after four years, R.S.A. No.4804 of 2009 -2- defendant No.3 was re-employed as UDC in the year 1978. He passed remaining papers of departmental examination on 23.03.1979. He was promoted as Commercial Assistant (CA) vide order dated 16.06.1980 and has been given deemed date of promotion as CA w.e.f. 04.12.1978. The plaintiff was, however, promoted as CA vide order dated 30.12.1991 although he also become eligible for promotion as CA in the year 1980 on completion of one year probation period as UDC. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No.3 was junior to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that his deemed date of promotion as Commercial Assistant be considered as 04.12.1978 the date on which plaintiff's junior defendant No.3 is deemed to have been promoted as Commercial Assistant. The plaintiff also claimed all consequential benefits. The defendants while admitting the factual position inter alia pleaded that defendant No.3 after being recruited as UDC w.e.f. 21.01.1969 was terminated w.e.f. 18.11.1974 but was taken back in service on 24.02.1978 and the intervening period was treated as extraordinary leave. Defendant No.3 passed the remaining papers of the departmental examination on 23.03.1979. Defendant No.3 was senior to the plaintiff as UDC and was accordingly promoted as CA vide order dated 16.06.1980. Claim of plaintiff's promotion from the same date as defendant No.3 was repudiated. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated R.S.A. No.4804 of 2009 -3- 29.05.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and peruse the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that after services of defendant No.3 were terminated in the year 1974, he was only re- employed and was not reinstated in service in the year 1978 and thus defendant No.3 was junior to the plaintiff. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in CWP No.9342 of 1988 titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & others. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff was admittedly promoted as UDC vide order dated 19.10.1979 and joined as such on 23.10.1979. However, defendant No.3 had been recruited directly as UDC w.e.f. 21.01.1969. His services were terminated on 18.11.1974 but he was taken back in service on 24.02.1978. He also passed the remaining papers of the departmental examination on 23.03.1979. Thus even after alleged re-employment or reinstatement in service, defendant No.3 joined as UDC on 24.02.1978 and also passed all papers of the departmental examination on 23.03.1979. However, the plaintiff joined as UDC on 23.10.1979 after promotion. Thus by no stretch plaintiff can be said to be senior to defendant No.3 as UDC. Consequently, plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff was depicted as junior to defendant No.3 in the seniority list. Defendant No.2 was promoted as CA by order dated 16.06.1980 and was given deemed date of promotion as 04.12.1978. Plaintiff was promoted as CA vide order dated 30.12.1991. The plaintiff filed R.S.A. No.4804 of 2009 -4- the instant suit on 09.09.2006. During this intervening period of 26 years the plaintiff did not file any suit to challenge the seniority or promotion of defendant No.3. Consequently, the suit filed more than 26 years after the promotion of defendant No.3 vide order dated 16.06.1980 is not only time barred but is also based on stale claim. Seniority and promotion effected more than 26 years prior to filing of the suit cannot be challenged and disturbed after lapse of such a long period. Such settled position cannot be unsettled after expiry of 26 years. It may be added that there were also large number of other officials in between plaintiff and defendant No.3. If the claim of plaintiff is accepted at this distant stage of time, it would result in chaos and anarchy in the seniority and promotion of thousands of employees. This cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, on merits, the plaintiff has miserably failed to depict that he was ever senior to defendant No.3. Whole claim of the plaintiff is based on the plea that being senior to defendant No.3, the plaintiff was entitled to promotion as CA w.e.f. the date defendant No.3 is deemed to have been promoted. However, plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate the said claim. The plaintiff has failed to depict that he was senior to defendant No.3. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The impugned judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 4th April, 2011 'raj'