IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.53 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd and another .... Appellants vs. Shri Krishna and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.K. Singal, Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to judgments and decrees dated 24.08.2006 and 7.09.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat and Additional District Judge, Panipat, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1 and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a work charged Team Mate on 23rd November, 1974 and thereafter his services were regularised as Assistant Fitter (Work charged) on 16th July 1980. He filed a suit praying that as his juniors, defendants No.3 to 14 had been promoted, he was entitled to promotion and all other benefits granted to them. It was also asserted that similar suits filed by his juniors had been decreed and in compliance therewith their orders of promotion had been passed. The learned trial court decreed the suit by holding that as respondent No.1 was not ineligible for promotion he would have to be promoted and granted all other benefits that have been granted to his juniors. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. The controversy in hand came up for consideration before this RSA No.53 of 2008 -2- Court in Regular Second Appeal No.54 of 2008. While considering similar arguments advanced by the appellants-Corporation against similar reliefs granted to a similarly situated employee, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below therein were upheld and Regular Second Appeal No.54 of 2008 titled as “Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd and another vs. Raghbir Singh and others” was dismissed. The controversy herein is no different. The trial court and the first appellate court after due consideration of relevant facts came to the conclusion that the respondent was ignored for promotion despite the absence of any adverse service record. It was, therefore, held that the respondent would be entitled to promotion and all other benefits granted to his juniors like Mahender Singh whose civil suit titled “Mahender Singh vs. General Manager etc.” was decreed on 31st July, 2000 and decree has been implemented by the Board. It was further held that as Mahender Singh is the respondent's junior, he could not be denied similar relief. The courts below also made reference to other civil suits titled as “Girish Chander vs. HPGCL” decided on 20.04.2005 and “Sushil Kumar vs. HPGCL and others” decided on 2.09.2005, wherein similar reliefs were granted to the respondent's juniors. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and the dismissal of Regular Second Appeal No.54 of 2008, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is consequently dismissed. 4.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge