Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar Bali vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 September, 2015
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RSA No.300 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.300 of 2014
Date of Decision.10.09.2015
Satish Kumar Bali .......Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
Present: None for the appellant.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was with reference to a decision taken by the Advocate General's office rejecting a representation given by the petitioner and communicated to him on 19/01/2004 that his name be placed above respondents 4 to 6. The plaintiff's contention was that he had been appointed as steno typist with the 3rd respondent - Advocate General on 08/07/1981, whereas the defendants No. 4 to 6 had been appointed subsequently at various points of time but they had been placed in the order of seniority above the plaintiff and the decision ought to be reversed. His representation was rejected and when the suit was filed, the contention in defence was that the suit was barred by limitation since the respective posts occupied by the defendants No. 4 to 6 in the senior scale as the Stenographer was more than 3 years from the date of institution of suit and the plaintiff cannot have any relief. The plaintiff's contention was rejected by the trial court and the decision was affirmed in appeal. The 2nd appeal is against the judgements of the two Courts below.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.300 of 2014 -2-
2. The uncontroverted facts are that defendants No.4 and 5 had been initially appointed as Steno Typist on 15.05.1976 and 16.09.1976 respectively on ad hoc basis. Their services were terminated on 16.06.1981 but the order of termination itself was withdrawn by the then Advocate General, Haryana, on the basis of which defendants No.4 and 5 had been reinstated on 20.11.1981 treating the period between termination and reinstatement as duty period. However, they were held not entitled to any pay and allowances for the intervening period on the principle of "no work no pay." The services of defendants No.4 and 5 had been regularised on 24.02.1982 with effect from 01.01.1980 on the basis of the then subsisting regularisation policy under which defendants No.4 and 5 were fully covered. The proceedings allowing for such regularisation had also been filed as an exhibit DW1/4. The plaintiff admitted that he had been appointed on daily basis as a steno typist only on 08.07.1981. The trial Court, therefore, reasoned that by no stretch of imagination could it be stated that the plaintiff was either senior or had better claims over defendants No.4 and 5. The point which the plaintiff, however, was attempting to state was that defendants had actually done their Law degree without taking appropriate permission from the AG's office and justifiably the decision was taken to terminate the services. The court below, however, stated that if at all, the aggrieved person could be only the Advocate General's office by the conduct of defendant Nos.4 and 6 and if they had originally taken action and subsequently withdrew that order to apply the regularisation policy, if the plaintiff could be stated as still aggrieved, the cause of action arose only at the time when the order was passed regularising the services of defendants No.4 and 5 and deeming them to be in regular service w.e.f. 01.01.1980 through an order passed on 24.02.1982. The cause of action for the suit, therefore, arose in the year PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.300 of 2014 -3- 1982 itself and the plaintiff cannot give a representation in the year 2004 and come up with a suit.
3. As regards the contention regarding the claim of the 6th defendant was concerned, she had been appointed as a Senior Scale Stenographer by way of direct appointment against an existing vacancy on 07.10.1988 by virtue of order exhibit DW1/11. She had been subsequently regularised on 31.12.1990, whereas the plaintiff had been appointed on ad hoc basis as Senior Scale Stenographer on 20.11.1989 and then reverted on 03.08.1990. He was then again promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer in October, 1991. In this way the 6th defendant was regularised as Senior Scale Stenographer on 31.12.1990 and in fact was in continuous service as senior Scale Stenographer since 07.10.1988 itself, whereas the plaintiff was regularised as Senior Scale Stenographer in October, 1991. His earlier officiation in the position of Senior Scale Stenographer was also not continuous. In this way, the court observed that the 6th defendant was in continuous service as Senior Scale Stenographer from the date much prior to the date when the plaintiff was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer on temporary basis and this temporary officiation also did not materialise into regular promotion, since he was reverted to the post of junior scale stenographer on 03.08.1990. The court observed again that if the plaintiff had been aggrieved, he must have taken immediate action from the time when he was reverted in the year 1990 itself and cannot have a suit brought in the year 2004. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was meritless and more so, considering it from the point of view of the fact that it was clearly barred by the law limitation.
4. I find that the decisions rendered by the two courts below have adverted to the facts correctly and also stated the correct point of law of limitation treating the cause of action to arise from the date when the PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.300 of 2014 -4- plaintiff had been placed beneath the seniority of defendant Nos.4 and 5 when they had been appointed in the year 1982 on permanent basis and regularised, while as regards the 6th the defendant also she had been actually appointed to the post as Senior Scale Stenographer much earlier to the date when the plaintiff assumed office and that too only temporarily and lost out on reversion by an order passed in the year 1990. There is no merit in the appeal and I find that there is no substantial question of law that is involved in the case.
5. The appeal 2nd appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 10, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document