Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR versus JASWANT RAI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Food Corporation of India & Anr v. Jaswant Rai - RSA-1710-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 861 (16 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 1710 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 14, 2006

Food Corporation of India and another

.....Appellants

Vs.

Jaswant Rai

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

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

The defendants Food Corporation of India and another have lost before the learned first Appellate Court and have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to get his seniority fixed at Serial No. 2468 and also entitled to consequential relief of promotion from the due date and the fixation of the seniority at Sr. No. 3373 was illegal, void, against the facts and law.

R.S.A. No. 1710 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. He took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence. On re-appraisal the learned first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that initially at the time of the appointment of the plaintiff and others, the seniority was to be fixed keeping in view the fact that he was shown at Sr. No. 29. But later on his seniority was fixed at Sr.No.3373 vide letter dated 29.11.1994. However, at that point of time, the plaintiff and others who were likely to be affected were not heard. The plaintiff was shown senior to Chuni Lal, Ram Dhan and Ram Sarup, in the appointment letter dated December 9, 1971. However, no notice was served upon the plaintiff while placing him in the seniority below the aforesaid persons.

It was held that the plaintiff had been prejudiced in his placement in the seniority list. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned first Appellate Court and a direction was issued to the defendant Corporation to prepare a fresh seniority list of the plaintiff and others in accordance with law by first issuing a provisional seniority list and by inviting objections from all affected officials and thereafter finalise the seniority list, in accordance with law.

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

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

Dismissed.

February 14, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.