1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 242 of 2009. Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. .. Appellant VS. Gobind Ram .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The State-appellant is impugning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court below dated 18.9.2008 by dint of which the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 16.3.2008, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, has been reversed and the suit of the plaintiff has been ordered to be decreed by holding him entitled to promotion on the post of Deputy Ranger and Range Officer w.e.f. 1.9.1981 and 1.2.1986 respectively with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till realization of the amount. I have heard learned State counsel and have gone through the paper book carefully. It emerges out from the paper-book that the learned trial court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff took into consideration the fact that since earlier the seniority list of Forest Guard was prepared on the basis of “Division” basis and as per the undertaking given by the State in CWP No.4600/1997, the Forest Department made the revised seniority list on the basis of “date of joining”, wherein the plaintiff was shown at Sr. No.5, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. But what impressed the learned Appellate Court below to decree the suit of the plaintiff is that one Jagdish Chander, who admittedly was junior to the plaintiff and was at Sr. No.8 in the seniority list, was given promotion on the post of Deputy 2 Ranger w.e.f. 1.9.1981 and that of Range Officer from 1.2.1986 by dint of Courts' order, which attained finality in due course and thus, rightly led the appellate court below to conclude that a senior cannot be deprived of the same benefit given to a junior. The learned State counsel has failed to point out anything from the record to take a contrary view. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court below are either illegal or perverse and need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 14,2009 Jiten