Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board And ... vs Piara Chand And Others on 24 February, 2012
Regular Second Appeal No.11 of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.11 of 2000
Date of decision : 24.02.2012
Punjab State Electricity Board and others
....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Piara Chand and others
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.Dharampal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
None for respondent No.4 despite service.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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)
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.08.1999, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants-respondent Nos.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'the appellants') against the judgment dated 29.08.1997, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'respondent Nos.1 to 4') for declaration that they were senior to respondent Nos.5 to 7 and are entitled to be considered for promotion from the date, they were promoted with all consequential benefits.
Regular Second Appeal No.11 of 2000 2
The suit was contested only by the appellants as the private respondents i.e. respondent Nos.5 to 7 were proceeded against exparte. Both the Courts below relied upon the order Ex.P1 of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in which it was specified that they would be senior to respondent Nos.5 to 7. The Courts further held that once this endorsement was there then without anything else having come on the record, the respondents No.1 to 4 would be entitled to be considered for promotion on the dates when respondent Nos.5 to 7 were considered. When this appeal was filed, no question of law was proposed.
Today, learned counsel for the appellants has proposed the following question of law:-
1. Whether the Courts below could declare respondent Nos.1 to 4 senior to respondent Nos.5 to 7 despite the fact that as per their date of promotion, respondent Nos.5 to 7 were senior to the contesting respondents as per the date of appointment.
In my opinion, in the face of specific endorsement in Ex.P1 which was not challenged by anybody including respondent Nos.5 to 7, the option before the appellant was either to show to the Court that endorsement was wrong or as a result of mistake but without showing anything of this sort, the appellants could not claim that that endorsement was futile and meaningless. Resultantly, the question proposed has to be answered against the appellants.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 24.02.2012 MAMTA