Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Co-Operative Supply And ... vs S.B.Sharma on 23 February, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 783 of 1995 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 783 of 1995
Date of decision: 23.2.2011
Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing
Federation Ltd.
......Appellant
Versus
S.B.Sharma
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. R.K.Malik Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Nikhil Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to be promoted to the rank of Shift Chemist in the pay scale of ` 800-1600/- from the date his junior was promoted and was also entitled to the consequential benefits. Plaintiff had joined the defendant on 11.4.1974 as Assistant Chemist and was the senior most chemist in HAFED-defendant. The defendant promoted A.K.Kapoor, Lab Chemist, in the pay scale of ` 525-900/- to the R.S.A.No. 783 of 1995 2 rank of of Shift Chemist in the pay scale of ` 800-1600/- vide order dated 12.5.1987. The said A.K.Kapoor was much junior to the plaintiff as he had joined the department on 3.12.1983. Plaintiff made a representation against the promotion of A.K.Kapoor as Shift Chemist but the same was rejected vide order dated 11.8.1988.
Defendant, in its written statement, averred that the post of Shift Chemist was created in view of the precising necessity. The seniority of the plaintiff was a matter of record. A.K.Kapoor had joined the defendant in the year 1982. The promotion of a candidate was always considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. At present the requisite qualification for the post of Shift Chemist was Degree in Oil Technology with two years experience or a graduate in Chemistry with five years experience in Vegetable Oil Processing Industry. The plaintiff did not fulfil the said qualification.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the senior most Chemist in the employment of defendant? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to promotion in preference to Mr.A.K.Kapoor as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
4.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Relief."R.S.A.No. 783 of 1995 3
The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.1992. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
Admittedly, the plaintiff had joined the defendant on 11.4.1974 as Assistant Chemist, whereas, A.K.Kapoor had joined the defendant much later. It is a settled proposition of law that a senior employee is liable to be considered for promotion and a junior employee cannot be promoted to a higher post by ignoring the claim of the senior employee. In case there is some adverse material against the senior employee, of course in that situation the senior employee may be ignored. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was anything adverse available on record against the plaintiff. At the time of passing of the order, whereby A.K.Kapoor was promoted to the post of Shift Chemist, no qualifications had been prescribed by the defendant. The Haryana state Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules were framed in the year 1988 and at that time, the qualifications prescribed for a Shift Chemist were Degree in Oil Technology with two years experience or M.Sc in Chemistry with five years experience in Vegetable Oil Processing Industry. However, the said Rules were not in existence at the time of passing of the promotion order of A.K.Kapoor on 12.5.1987. In these R.S.A.No. 783 of 1995 4 circumstances, the defendant could not base reliance on the Rules. The claim of the plaintiff was liable to be considered at the time of promotion of his junior.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
February 23, 2011
anita