433 7 1 e 1 Reciular Second Appeal Noa3487 of 2000 10 S M 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 4 CHANDIGARH Date of Decision March 30 2011 1 Reaular Second Apoeal No487 of 2000 10 8 M 1 e C 0 Kuldip Singh opellant 0 Versus I C5 State of Punjab and others Respondents I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 5r 2 1 Whether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see t the judgment2 I C1 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not Z 3a Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 CO 4r 7 Z presentl Ms Heena Talwar Advocate for the appellant MsAmbika Luthra Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the respondents MOHINDER PAL J IS in second appea 1 aggrieved against the judgmentand decree passed by the Iower appellateCourt whereby judgment and decree passed by the trial Coert decreeingthe suit of the plaintiffappellant to the effectthat he was entitled to be treated 1 . Rashmi 2012.06.13 15: 25 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 434 2 r ReaularSecond Aooeal Noe3487 of 2000 CO M l and to the post of Veterinary Pharmacistl Compounderand the 4d order as to his beingtreated as Water Career was illegal null and void and that he was entitled to all the rights and benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date his Junior Dressers were promotedas VeterinaryCompounder was set aslde I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the records of the case 1 C4 The only questioninvolved in this appeal IS whether the passingof training course of Pharmacist was a condition precedentor 0 necessaryfor a Dresser foi promotion to the post of Veterinary I O Pharmacistl Compounder The plaintiffappellant was working as a Dresser in the He had been sent for trainlng Cr Z course of Pharmacist for one year whereafter he was to be adjusted t and appointedagainstthe post of Veterinary Pharmacistl Compounder Q C However his training was ordered to be discontinued by the I c department vide order dated 10121979 The claim of the plaintiffm Z appellantbefore the trial Court was that his case was similar to that of 00 his colleague Brij Mohan Azad Sharma As noticed above the trial 7 Court upheld the claim of the plaintiffeappellantHowever the Iower Z appellateCourt set aside the judgmentand decree passed by the trial 0m Court by holding inter alia that the plaintiffaappellantdid not prove on record that his case was similar to that of Brij Mohan Azad Sharma aforesaid The plaintiffappellanthas piacedon record alongwith Civil Miscellaneous ApplicationNo748eC of 2003 copies of judgments of the Iower appellateCourt this Court and of the Honble SupremeCoun in the case of Brij Mohan Azad Sharma aforesaid which are Annexures A1 A2 and A respectively The Iower appellateCourt Ill . Rashmi 2012.06.13 15: 25 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 435 1 3 rJ ReaularSecond Aooeal Noe3487 of 2000 1O 6 M the case of Brij Mohan Azad Sharma aforesaid wherein the pleaof the 4 department in the written statement was that Brij Mohan Azad Sharma who was a Dresser as IS the plaintifappellant had not successfullycompleted the training prescribedfor appointmentto the postof Veterinary PharmacistlCompounderand as such he was not entitled to be promoted as VeterinaryPharmacistl Compounder had upheldthe judgmentand decree passed by the trial Court inthe case t of Brij Mohan Azad Sharma by holding that he 3rij Mohan Azad 0 SharmaJ was entitled to be considered for promotion as Veterinary 0 Pharmastl Compounder irl spiteof his having not cleared the training I C5 vide judgment and decree Annexure Ae1 This judgmentof the Iower I appellateCourt in the case of Brij Mohan Azad Sharma was upheld by er Z this Court Itl Regular Second Appeal No 2371 of 1991 which was 1 dismissed on 2111992 vide Annexure A The departmenthad Cr filed Special Leave to Appeal Civill NoA941192 challenging the c0 dismissal of RegularSecond Appeal No2371 of 1991 by this Court The Z Special Leave to Appeal vio NoA941192 was dismissed by the Cll Honble SupremeCourt on 241992 videAnnexure A3 C a2 Of course the cannot be treated Z discriminatelyViewed from this angle the Iower appellateCourt was 11 not justified tn reversingthe judgmentand decree passed by the trial COUTte Resultantlv this appealsucceeds The same is accordingly allowed and the judgmentand decree passedby the iower appellateCourt Y are set aside and th85e of the trial Court are restored so far as merits of the case are concerned However the wlll not be entitled to consequentialbenefits at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as has been ordered by the trial Court and instead he will be r . Rashmi 2012.06.13 15: 25 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 436 4 s1r rJ Reaular Second Aooeal No 3487 of 2000 lO S M 1 entitled to these benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per cent per i annum The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are rnodified with regardto the entitiement of interest of the plaintiff appellant to the extent indicated above There shall be no order as to costs Datedl March 30 2011 PALI ak JUDGE Ol 1 0 0 I C5 I Cr Z r C Ct I C3 Z t CO a7 Z Vll l 1 . Rashmi 2012.06.13 15: 25 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document