Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karama And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 May, 2012
CWP No. 15280 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15280 of 2010
Date of Decision: 02.05.2012
Karama and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. H.K.Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.H.K.Brinda, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 and 4.
****
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. (Oral):
By this petition the petitioners have challenged the designation of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Mate. As regards the designation of respondent No.3, the same took place as far back as 2002. Resultantly as regards him the claim would have to be held to be barred by delay and latches in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 wherein their Lordships held that normally in case where a recurrent cause of action arises the plea of limitation would not be available except where a promotion is CWP No. 15280 of 2010 2 challenged. As regards the promotion of respondent No.4, the same was made on 22.05.2007. Immediately the petitioner moved representation and consequent thereto petitioner No.1 was given the designation of Mate. In the present petition the petitioners have claimed promotion from the date when respondent No.4 was so designated. The ground taken is that though respondents No.3 and 4 were initially appointed earlier to the petitioners, yet they had been transferred on their own request to the division where the petitioners were working and as per the extant instructions in such a case the transferred employee joins at the tail of the seniority. These facts have not been denied in the written statement. The plea which has been taken is that designation as Mate is not a promotion. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from a perusal of document Annexure R-1 it is clear that the case for designation as Mate has to be considered on the basis of seniority and, therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents to claim that it is a mere designation and has no element of promotion.
In my opinion this argument must prevail.
Learned DAG has also argued that there are persons even senior to the petitioners. However, in view of the judgment in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) it has to be held that those persons who have not raised any grievance in the past many years would be barred from raising any grievance today.
Resultantly this petition is allowed. It is directed that the case of the petitioners be considered for promotion from the date/s when CWP No. 15280 of 2010 3 respondent No.4 was promoted within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also declared that in future the designation of Mate would have to be made as per seniority.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 02, 2012 sunita