Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA STATE & ANOTHER versus OM PARKASH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Haryana State & another v. Om Parkash - RSA-2500-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 675 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.2500 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 16, 2006.

Haryana State & another .... Appellants

Vs.

Om Parkash .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.D.S.Nalwa, DAG, Haryana

for the appellants.

Mr.P.L.Verma, Advocate

for the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant State of Haryana and another having concurrently lost before the two courts below, have approached this Court through the present appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claimiing that he was entitled to the promotion with effect from August 31, 1994, on the post of Junior Election Kanungo, the date when his juniors had been promoted.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed that since the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for one year i.e. from April 01, 1984 to April 24, 1985, was containing an entry regarding `integrity doubtful', therefore, the plaintiff could not be promoted in the year 1994. It was further claimed by the defendants that the plaintiff could have been considered for promotion only after the expiry of ten years from the date of adverse entry.

Both the courts below have found it as a fact that the aforesaid adverse ACR, relied upon by the defendants, for the period from April 01, 1984 to April 24, 1985 was never communicated to the plaintiff and as such, the defendants could not place any reliance upon the same, in order to take the aforesaid ACR into consideration for rejecting the valid claim of the plaintiff for next due promotion.

R.S.A.No.2500 of 2004 : 2 :

The learned courts below further found that the adverse entry with regard to `integrity doubtful' , was never conveyed to the plaintiff at any point of time. Consequently, the learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that since the persons junior to the plaintiff have been promoted with effect from August 31, 1994, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to promotion with effect from the aforesaid date.

The appeal filed by the defendants also failed before the learned first appellate court. Identical findings were recorded by the learned first appellate court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the 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 16, 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.