In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) R.S.A. No.720 of 1992 ..... Date of decision:17.10.2011 State of Punjab .....Appellant v. Gopal Dass .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant-State. Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate for the respondent-Gopal Dass. ..... (2) R.S.A. No.787 of 1992 ..... Gopal Dass .....Appellant v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate for the appellant. R.S.A. Nos.720 of 1988 etc. [2] Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This order will dispose of the afore-stated two appeals i.e. RSA No. 720 of 1992 filed by defendant-State of Punjab and RSA No.787 of 1992 filed by plaintiff-Gopal Dass against the judgment and decree dated 4.12.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby appeal filed by the State of Punjab has been partly allowed and the decree of the trial Court has been modified and a decree for declaration has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-Gopal Dass (appellant in RSA No.787 of 1992) and against the defendant-State of Punjab to the effect that the plaintiff would be deemed to be promoted to the rank of Corporal Instructor w.e.f. the date Deepak Kumar was promoted and he would be entitled to the arrears of salary eligible to the plaintiff w.e.f. the date of his promotion. It was further ordered that in case the vacancy is not available with the Department, then the plaintiff would be deemed to be promoted w.e.f. the date Deepak Kumar was promoted and Deepak Kumar would stand reverted to the rank of Despatch-rider. Gopal Dass-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 12.2.1988 passed by the Commandant General, Punjab Home Guards and Director Civil Defence, Chandigarh communicated to him on 18.2.1988 was illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction. Gopal Dass- plaintiff joined as a Despatch-rider on 2.9.1968. One Daya Ram, who was also working as a Despatch-rider was junior to him, however, was promoted as a Corporal Instructor on 1.9.1973. Another Despatch-rider Deepak R.S.A. Nos.720 of 1988 etc. [3] Kumar also junior to the plaintiff was similarly promoted in February 1988. The case of the plaintiff is that although he was senior to both the aforesaid officials, however, he was not promoted to the rank of Corporal Instructor prior to his juniors. He represented to the Department but his representation was dismissed vide order dated 12.2.1988. In reply, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff was appointed on 2.9.1968 and that the junior officials to him i.e. Daya Ram and Deepak Kumar were promoted to the rank of Corporal Instructors. However, it is their case that the plaintiff could not be promoted because he was not eligible according to the Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') as he was under-Matric and the basic qualification for promotion to this post was Matriculation. After framing issues, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with the direction to the defendants to promote the appellant as Corporal Instructor w.e.f. 1.9.1973 the date from his junior Daya Ram was promoted. The State went in appeal wherein the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified to the effect that plaintiff-appellant Gopal Dass will be deemed to be promoted to the rank of Corporal Instructor with effect from the date Deepak Kumar was promoted and he will be entitled to the arrears of salary eligible to the plaintiff from the date of his promotion. It was further ordered that in case the vacancy was not available with the Department then Gopal Dass will be deemed to be promoted w.e.f. the date Deepak Kumar was promoted and Deepak Kumar will stand reverted to the rank of Despatch-rider. However, the parties were left to bear their own costs. Aggrieved from this order the State as well as Gopal Dass have come in appeal. R.S.A. Nos.720 of 1988 etc. [4] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the Courts below with their assistance. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-appellant Gopal Dass has joined the Department as Despatch-rider on 2.9.1968 and that one Daya Ram and Deepak Kumar were junior to him. It is further not disputed that Daya Ram was promoted as Corporal Instructor on 1.9.1973 and that one Deepak Kumar junior to the plaintiff was also promoted as Corporal Instructor in February 1988. Once again, it is not disputed that all these three persons are under-Matric and as per the Rules the minimum qualification prescribed for Corporal Instructor is Matriculation. The main grouse of the appellant-Gopal Dass is that Daya Ram, who was junior to him, has been promoted as Corporal Instructor on 1.9.1973. It will be relevant to mention here that the representation of the appellant-Gopal Dass has been rejected on 12.2.1988. The date of filing of representation is not mentioned by the appellant. I am of the considered opinion that suit of the plaintiff claiming parity with Daya Ram after a gap of almost 15 years was hopelessly time barred. Otherwise also, the new rules have come in force in the year 1983 which prescribe for qualification of Matriculation to the post of Corporal Instructor. However, it is own admission of the respondent- appellant State that Deepak Kumar was also junior to the appellant who has been promoted in the year 1988 i.e. after coming into force of the Rules in 1983 and who was also under-Matric. The plaintiff has knocked the door of the Court on 24.2.1989 and resultantly he has been held entitled to be promoted to the rank of Corporal Instructor with effect from the date Deepak Kumar was promoted. Under these circumstances, I do not find any R.S.A. Nos.720 of 1988 etc. [5] fault in the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the order passed by the trial Court has been modified by holding that the appellant is entitled to promotion. Resultantly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. October 17, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*