R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.2.2009 Jagroop Singh .......... Appellant Versus Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 30.5.2005 and 30.1.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction to the respondents for correction in seniority list of the plaintiff for the period from 1971 to 1979 and as a consequence thereof he be promoted from the date his juniors as per the amended seniority list stood promoted. He also prayed for release of retiral benefits due to him as the same were not paid in spite of the fact that the plaintiff stood retired on 31.7.1999. The suit was filed in the year 2002. One of the issues framed R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 2 was “Whether the suit was within limitation? The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff was claiming the correction of seniority list of year 1979 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2002 i.e. after retirement on 31.7.1999 and, thus, the suit was time barred. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal and the learned lower appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree qua the relief of mandatory injunction for correction of the seniority list and promotion with retrospective effect to be time barred held that the claim of retiral benefits could not be said to be time barred and consequently modified the decree and by way of mandatory injunction direction was issued to the respondents to decide his claim of retiral benefits and release the same within four months thereof. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- “Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are perverse as it is against the well settled law that no limitation applies to recurring cause of action ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff-appellant had recurring cause of action to claim his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and, therefore, the learned Courts below were not correct in holding the part of the suit to that effect to be time barred. However, this plea of the learned R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 3 counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was not aware of the seniority list while in service when the seniority list was prepared in the year 1971 and continued till the year 1979 and the same seniority list remained in force till retirement, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has recurring cause of action to challenge the seniority list as claimed. Thus, the substantial question of law as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant does not arise for consideration by this Court in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 19.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE