Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YUDISTHAR RAJ versus HARYANA STATE & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yudisthar Raj v. Haryana State & Ors - RSA-3872-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 899 (17 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.10432-C of 2005 and

RSA NO.3872 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:February 23, 2006

Yudisthar Raj

....Appellant

VERSUS

Haryana State and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the appellant.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

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

The plaintiff having concurrently lost before the two Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on April 17,1998 claiming that he was entitled to be promoted and considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk (Head Revenue Clerk) with effect from October 4, 1966 and after the aforesaid deemed date of promotion, he was entitled to all consequential benefits.

The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff was overage for consideration of

CM No.10432-C of 2005 and

promotion, since he was more than 35 years of age and could not be so considered under the rules applicable to him.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was not entitled to promotion with effect from October 4,1966 since he was already more than 35 years of age on the aforesaid date and as per the rules applicable to him his claim could not be considered. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed by him also failed before the learned First Appellate Court.

Besides the rejection of the claim of the plaintiff on merits of the controversy, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been held to be barred by limitation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. In any case the claim made by the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by limitation.

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.

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

Dismissed.

February 23, 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.