Balbir Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is plaintiff''s regular second appeal against dismissal of his suit by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007 and his first appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 18.7.2009. Balbir Singh, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to refixation of his seniority properly, fairly and deservingly keeping in view the length of his service from the date of appointment in the job with consequential service benefits and arrears of pay. He has claimed that he was appointed on adhoc basis on 8.4.1974. He was later on made regular in the job under the orders dated 21.10.1974. His seniority has been fixed in accordance with the existing service rules and government instructions. The defendants then started threatening that even juniors of the plaintiff would be promoted and the claim of the plaintiff would not be decided. He has further claimed that Bhupinderpal Kaur, a lady social worker was adjusted as a clerk and this became the cause of belittlement to the plaintiff. The plaintiff made many representations, but to no effect. He claimed that seniority has to be counted from the date of first appointment and the plaintiff joined service on 8.4.1974 and thus, he is entitled to get his seniority refixed and to get service benefits.

The defendants resisted the claim. They averred that the plaintiff was appointed as clerk on adhoc basis on 5.4.1974 and he joined the service on 8.4.1974. They further claimed that his services were regularized in the department on 21.10.1974. It is further claimed that the tentative inter se seniority list of steno-typists and clerks was circulated vide order dated 29.2.1980 and objections were invited within a month, but the plaintiff did not raise any objection regarding his seniority and the plaintiff has filed the suit after a lapse of 24 years and consequently, the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is also claimed to be bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC. It is further claimed that the cadre of Bhupinderpal Kaur, lady social worker was changed to the clerical cadre with the approval of the administrative department vide letter dated 6.2.1974. According to them, the plaintiff was appointed as a clerk on 21.10.1974 and as per the inter-se seniority, name of Bhupinderpal Kaur was shown at Sr. No. 76 as clerk whereas the name of the plaintiff was at Sr. No. 81. It is averred that the plaintiff is junior to Bhupinderpal Kaur because she joined as a clerk on 13.3.1974 and she is entitled to seniority from the date of change of cadre i.e., 13.3.1974. It is further claimed that the plaintiff never challenged the seniority of Bhupinderpal Kaur.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

Whether a valid notice u/s 80 CPC has been served upon the defendants before filing the suit? OPD

Relief.

The parties led their respective evidence. It has been held by learned trial court under issue No. 1 that according to letter dated 6.2.1974, the date of seniority of Bhupinderpal Kaur was to be counted from 13.3.1974 when her cadre was changed. It is further held that the plaintiff is thus, clearly shown to be junior to Bhupinderpal Kaur as per the seniority list and so, the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration as prayed for. Suit of the plaintiff was also found to be barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of learned trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal which failed before learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 18.7.2009.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was appointed on adhoc basis on 8.4.1974 and he was regularized thereafter under orders dated 21.10.1974. According to him, his seniority would have to be taken from the date of his adhoc appointment. He has stated that Bhupinderpal Kaur came from another cadre and has been given seniority above the plaintiff.

Even if Bhupinderpal Kaur came from a different cadre, she joined as a clerk earlier to the plaintiff. The plaintiff joined as clerk on 8.4.1974 while Bhupinderpal Kaur had joined the post of clerk in the department on 13.3.1974. She may have come from a different cadre, the plaintiff cannot challenge her seniority as a clerk, the post which she joined on 13.3.1974. He could challenge her absorption in the department as clerk from a different cadre which the plaintiff has not done. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to differ from learned courts below in their approach to the facts of the case. So, I find no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arising in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.