JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapalhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1994 decided on 15.12.1995.
2. The appellant is the 7th defendant.
3. One Surinder Singh filed the suit for a declaration that the seniority list of Sectional Officers (Electrical) as on 20th September, 1977 circulated on 21.3.1978 is illegal, void and arbitrary. According to him, defendant No. 7 who has been shown senior to him was not entitled to the benefit of military service. The plaintiff respondent was appointed as Sectional Officer (Electrical) by an order dated 15.1.1972 of the Chief Engineer, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and he joined the duty as such on 7.3.1972.
4. While so, the 7th defendant-appellant joined the Punjab Agricultural University on 9.6.1972. According to the plaintiff, he joined the University earlier to 7th defendant. Therefore, the grievance of the plaintiff is that the 7th defendant who sought the benefit of
military service towards the fixation of seniority was not entitled to the benefit of military service as per the circulars of the University and he was not entitled to be assigned seniority over and above the plaintiff. The plainliff made several representations to revise the seniority and place him above the 7th defendant. Since his representation did not yield any result, he filed the suit for the relief as stated above.
5. The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 contended that the suit is not maintainable and the seniority has been fixed according to rules and the instructions and the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. They admitted that the seniority list dated 31.3.1978 was circulated in which the benefit of military service was given to the 7th defendant who is the appellant herein in accordance with the Punjab National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965. Therefore, they pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. The 7th defendant filed a separate written statement contending inter alia that the suit is barred by time and he served the military during the relevant period. Therefore, he was a substantive member of the Armed Force and was entitled to the benefit of military service.
7. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff examined himself and rnarkid 24 documents. The 7th defendant examined himself as DW-I and marked certain documents whereas the defendant Nos. I to 6 examined DW-2.
8. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sub Jude 1st Class, Ludhiana decreed the suit with costs and directed defendant Nos. I to 6 to revise the seniority of the plaintiff with effect from 1977 and also grant promotion to the plaintiff if he deserves the same and to give him all benefits on the basis of the revised seniority. Aggrieved by the same defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed the Civil Appeal-No. 35 of 16.8.1994 (RBT No. 165 of 30.8.1995) and the 7th defendant who is the appellant herein filed the Civil Appeal No. 21 of 15.2.1994. Both the appeals were heard together and were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana by a common judgment dated 15.12.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the 7th defendant alone filed this appeal.
9. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the appellant, the 7th defendant is entitled to the benefit of military service as he was on short commission for a period of five years. According to him, the 7th defendant joined the Military Engineering Service on 13.10.1965 and he was discharged on 13.10.1970 and after his discharge, he got employment in Government service on 9.6.1972 and the emergency was declared on 26.10.1962anditwasliftedon 10.1.1968. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of military service. He further contended that the suit is barred by time and this contention of the defendant-appellant has not been considered by the Courts below.
10. It is, on the other hand, contended by the learned
Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of military service and the suit is not barred by limitation since the representations filed against the seniority list were not decided and when the representatives of the plaintiff have not been decided, the period of limitation does not start and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time.
11. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the Courts below and considered the respective arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. There is no dispute of the fact that the plaintiff-respondent joined the service earlier to the appellant. The appellant is claiming seniority only on the basis of his military service. It is pertinent to note that in the original seniority which was implemented on 14.12.1973 the plaintiff was shown at Sr. No. 4 while the appellant-7th defendant was shown at Sr. No. 6. This seniority list has been marked as Exhibit P-6. While circulating the said seniority list, objections were invited, but the appellant-defendant No. 7 did not file any objection to the seniority list claiming benefit of any military service.
13. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to place any material before me that the service in Corps Engineering will also be treated as military service. Apart from that since the appellant-defendant No. 7 kept quiet for more than five years after the circulation of the original seniority in the year 1973 he cannot claim the benefit of military service after Ihe lapse of five years. Admittedly, the original seniority list was circulated in the year 1973 and it was only in 1978 the benefit of military service was given to the appellant in 1978. The seniority list once became final cannot be disturbed.
14. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. After granting the benefit of military service to the defendant No. 7, he was placed at No. 2 in the revised seniority list which was circulated in the year 1978 among the Sectional Officers and objections was invited from them within 15 days from the issue of the seniority list. The plaintiff made a number of representations against the said seniority list in which he was shown junior to defendant No. 7, but the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 did not consider any of the representations made by the plaintiff under the rules. The last representation was made by the plaintiff on 7.1.1986. When there was non- consideration to the statutory representations of the plaintiff by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 then the plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana on 2.2.1987 challenging the said seniority list. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time.
15. The appellant has not placed any material on record before the authorities how he was entitled to the benefit of military service. The defendant Nos. 1 to 6
also did not place any material on record to show how the appellant is entitled to the benefit of military service. It is not sufficient to say that the appellant is entitled to Ihe benefit of military service. Even according to the appellant, who had been examined as DW-1, he was recruited as Junior Commissioned Officer in the Bengal Engineers Group and Centre, Rurkee, Corpus of Engineers.
16. I do not, therefore, find any ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the appeal filed by appellant- defendant No. 7 is liable to be dismissed.
17. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
18. Appeal dismissed