Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGINDER SINGH versus PUNJAB GOVT. & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Joginder Singh v. Punjab Govt. & Anr - RSA-3796-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1061 (22 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.10183-C of 2005 and

RSA NO.3796 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:February 28,2006

Joginder Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Punjab Govt. and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri A.S.Virk, Advocate for the appellant.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff claiming that he is entitled for promotion amongst the clerical cadre.

The plaintiff claimed that he was initially appointed as a Clerk and had retired from service on September 30,2001 on attaining the age of superannuation as a Senior Assistant from the Treasury Office, Punjab. The plaintiff further claimed that since at no point of time he was absorbed in the services of the Treasury Office, therefore, his initial appointment as a Clerk subsisted and he was entitled to promotion as per his entitlement in the Clerical Cadre.

Both the Courts below have concurrently found it is a fact that the plaintiff had been initially appointed as a Clerk on CM No.10183-C of 2005 and

October 26,1967 by promotion from Class IV post. However, later on the plaintiff was sent to work in the treasury office and he had worked as an Assistant Treasurer. In the year 1984, the plaintiff had been promoted as a Senior Assistant, a post on which he had worked till the date of his superannuation, therefore, it has rightly been held by both the Courts below that once the plaintiff had remained throughout in service in the treasury office and had even availed of promotions, therefore, he could not be heard to claim that he was entitled to any promotion in the Clerical Cadre. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed by him failed before the learned First Appellate Court.

It is apparent that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff on March 30,2002. The plaintiff had retired from service on September 30,2001 on attaining the age of superannuation as a Senior Assistant from the Treasury Office. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff had himself availed of the promotions and his service career had remained throughout in the treasury office, then he cannot claim any entitlement in the clerical cadre.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

CM No.10183-C of 2005 and

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 28, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.