Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR versus SMT.HARBHAJAN KAUR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab & Anr v. Smt.Harbhajan Kaur - RSA-3764-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1275 (28 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3764 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 28, 2006.

State of Punjab and another .... Appellants Vs.

Smt.Harbhajan Kaur .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.D.S.Jandiala, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellants.

JUDGMENT (Oral) :

The defendant-State of Punjab and another having lost before the learned first appellate court, have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that she was entitled to salary with effect from June 17, 1986 till September 16, 2000 and was also entitled to seniority in service with effect from the aforesaid date, when the other candidates in her batch, were appointed as per the judgment dated July 31, 1998.

Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that she had earlier filed a suit which had resulted in decree in her favour. Consequently, it was held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.

Plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. Learned first appellate court noticed that earlier litigation, ultimately, had culminated in favour of the plaintiff and had attained finality upto Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Thereafter, when an offer for appointment was not being made to her, she preferred execution proceedings.

R.S.A.No.3764 of 2005 : 2 :

During the course of execution proceedings, appointment order was issued in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2000, that she could join her duties with effect from September 16, 2000 instead of June 17, 1986. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court found that the plaintiff could not be denied the benefit of earlier litigation, which had ended in her favour upto the Apex Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and her suit was decreed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court, suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

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

Dismissed.

February 28, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.