RSA No.3809 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3809 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:27.09.2010 Baj Singh ....appellant Versus Punjab Mandi Board & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anshul Joy,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. `This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 04.03.2002 passed by the Government of Punjab, whereby defendant-respondent No.4 was held to be senior to the plaintiff- appellant is ineffective upon his rights with a further prayer that appellant be declared senior to Jagir Singh, defendant-respondent No.4, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, appellant joined as Auction Recorder with the respondents on 22.04.1983. His services were regularized on 24.05.1983 whereas Jagir Singh, respondent No.4 was appointed as Auction Recorder who joined his service on 27.05.1983. A dispute regarding his seniority arose and as such vide resolution No.7, dated 18.03.2000, the appellant was declared senior to Jagir Singh. RSA No.3809 of 2010(O & M) 2 Appeal filed by Jagir Singh was also dismissed by defendant No.1 vide order dated 06.07.2000. Jagir Singh preferred a revision under Section 42 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act against the aforesaid orders and the same was accepted by Sh.A.K.Gupta, Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 04.03.2002, whereby resolution No.7, dated 18.03.2000 and subsequently were set aside and Jagir Singh was ordered to be placed senior to the plaintiff. While challenging the aforesaid order in the civil suit, the appellant averred that the order dated 04.03.2002 was passed exceeding the jurisdiction and the appointment of the plaintiff was made in accordance with the rules and his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of initial joining of service by him as Auction Recorder i.e.from 22.04.1983 and not w.e.f.25.05.1983. The suit was contested on various grounds. While dismissing the suit, both the courts held that the period of service of the plaintiff from 22.04.1983 to 24.05.1983 cannot be considered for deciding his seniority as during the aforesaid period, the appellant was appointed as a daily wager and purely, on ad hoc basis. Even, before this Court, counsel for the appellant was unable to show as to how the aforesaid period of service which was admittedly ad hoc service could be counted for the purpose of determining seniority between the plaintiff and the defendant-Jagir Singh. There is no dispute to the fact that in case the aforesaid period is not to be considered, then admittedly, Jagir Singh- respondent No.4 is senior to the appellant being elder in age than the appellant as both of them were appointed on regular basis on the same date. No argument has been raised on behalf of appellant to show that the impugned order dated 04.03.2002 passed by the competent RSA No.3809 of 2010(O & M) 3 authority was without jurisdiction. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.09.2010 neenu