RSA nO. 1707 OF 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1707 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 11, 2009 Darshan Singh ...... Appellant Versus PSEB Patiala and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Grewal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff wherein he sought declaration that he was bound to be promoted with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. On 28.1.2009 the following order was passed:- “On 30.9.2008 the following order was passed: “A perusal of the impugned judgment, discloses that during the pendency of the case and by way of order dated 22.3.2004 Ex.D3, the appellant was granted seniority at Sr.No.2287-B. It is also clear that his junior, RSA nO. 1707 OF 2007 (O&M) 2 namely, Panna Lal whose name figures at Sr. No. 2479 was promoted to the post of foreman in the year 1996. It is, therefore, prima facie apparent that the respondents should have granted notional promotion to the appellant w.e.f. 1996,the date on which his junior was promoted and as a result re-fixed his pay for retiral benefits etc. Counsel for the respondents prays for time to seek instructions. Adjourned to 20.11.2008.” Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he has no specific instructions in this regard. Let an affidavit of Director Personnel, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala be filed either to accept or controvert the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Adjourned to 18.3.2009.” Thereafter affidavit was filed by the Director Personnel wherein it has been admitted that the appellant was given seniority at serial No. 2287-B vide letter dated 22.3.2004. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that the case of the appellant was never considered with effect from the date his junior Panna Lal was promoted. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether in view of statement of DW1 and Ex.DW3, seniority list produced on record by the respondents/defendants, supporting the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that Panna Lal is junior to plaintiff/appellant and had been promoted on the post of Foreman in the year 1996, the approach of the Courts below in declining the relief of notional promotion to the plaintiff and consequential benefits is erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law? ii)Whether in the absence of any document on record produced RSA nO. 1707 OF 2007 (O&M) 3 by the respondents/defendants showing that the plaintiff was non-suited for promotion on the basis of unsatisfactory service record, the findings of the Courts below to the effect are perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law? iii)Whether the plaintiff/appellant can be deprived of the benefits of promotional post towards the calculation of pension and pensionary benefits and arrears of pay on account of negligence on part of respondents department? iv)Whether in view of the fact that the plaintiff's name was included in the seniority list of lineman for the first time after the filing of he present suit by the plaintiff/appellant, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for? With regard to those questions I have no hesitation in holding that even though the plaintiff is not entitled for a declaration that he stood promoted yet he shall definitely be entitled to a declaration that his case must be considered with effect from the date Panna Lal was promoted since it is not disputed that at the relevant time the case of the plaintiff was not considered and it was only subsequently that he was moved up in the seniority list that his right for consideration crystalised. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for promotion with effect from the date his junior Panna Lal was promoted, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the appellant is found suitable for promotion he would be granted only notional benefits of fixation of salary etc. and within a period of three months thereafter his enhanced retiral benefits will be worked out and released to him along with whatever arrears which may be due to him. RSA nO. 1707 OF 2007 (O&M) 4 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 11, 2009 sunita