Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex.Nb.Sub Hari Ram Gothwal vs Union Of India And Others on 8 January, 2009
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 1317 of 2007 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1317 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.01.2009
Ex.Nb.Sub Hari Ram Gothwal
....Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. R.C.Chatrath, Advocate
for the appellant.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
Delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Narnaul dated 21.4.2006. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff which was reversed by virtue of the impugned judgment.
The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that orders dated 27.3.1997, 30.4.1998 and 28.5.1998 were illegal. He further prayed that declaration be issued to the effect that he was deemed to be promoted in the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 17.4.1998 and consequently he be held entitled to get the pensionary benefits in the said rank along with interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of salary and pensionary benefits. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was enrolled in the Army (Army Service Crops (sup) on 1.5.1972 and was discharged on 1.5.1998. On 1.10.1992 he was promoted to the rank of R.S.A. No. 1317 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Naib Subedar. It was pleaded that he could have served upto the age of 55 years but he was discharged from the Army service in an arbitrary manner and that he was due for promotion w.e.f. 1.5.1998. He was granted service pension for the rank of Naib Subedar whereas he was entitled to get pension of the rank of Subedar. After his discharge he was granted the honorary rank of Subedar but without any monetary benefit.
The defendants/respondents contested the suit, took various objections and controverted the allegations of the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant was awarded a punishment of 'reprimand' on 31.1.1979 for having lost his identity card and was also awarded 'severe reprimand' on 30.5.1999 for using insubordinate language to his superior officer. Although he was promoted as Naib Subedar on 1.10.1992 but he was not entitled to any monetary benefit.
The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of evidence which was led before it :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
5. Relief.
In appeal, the findings were reversed.
R.S.A. No. 1317 of 2007 (O&M) -3-It was held by the learned Lower Appellate Court that there was no vacancy available to promote the plaintiff as Subedar till the month of March, 1998 and therefore he could not be promoted. The Lower Appellate Court observed that the findings of the learned trial Court were based on un-exhibited documents which could not have been looked into for the purpose of adjudication. The plea of the respondents that there was no vacancy available on the date when the appellant was to be considered for promotion was accepted. It was further observed that out of the 11 vacancies 10 were reserved and had continued to be so till April, 1998 and in this view of the situation the claim of the appellant was found to be without any basis.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are erroneous.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit. A categoric observation has been made that out of 11 vacancies, which were existing, 10 were reserved and continued to be so till April, 1998. The appellant has been unable to show any material to the contrary. In any eventuality, no substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the absence of any material which could offset the observation made by the learned Lower Appellate Court.
Appeal dismissed.
8.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss