R.S.A. No. 4323 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 4323 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.03.2009
Jit Singh and others
....appellants
versus
State of Punjab and others
....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate,
for the appellants.
***
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments
and decree dated 16.5.2005 and 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Courts
below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants seeking
seniority from the date of initial appointment as Sericulture Inspectors in
the field offices of defendant No. 2, has been ordered to be dismissed.
The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit claiming that they were
appointed as Sericulture Inspectors between 1963-65. However, on
merger of their Department, they were absorbed in the Industry
Department in the year 1976. The plaintiffs claimed that they have been
granted seniority from the date of their joining as Clerk in the Industry
Department, and the benefit of their service rendered in previous
department has not been granted to them. The plea was also raised that a
R.S.A. No. 4323 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
similarly situated other employee was granted the benefit.
The suit was contested by defendant/respondents on the plea
that, as mentioned in their order of absorption, the plaintiff/appellants
were not to get seniority for the service rendered in the previous
department.
The plea was also raised that the suit is barred under Order 2
Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as prior to filing the suit, the
plaintiffs had filed civil writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court, but no
such relief was claimed though it was available.
The learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact
that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants was barred under Order 2
Rule 2 CPC.
The finding recorded being in consonance with settled law,
does not call for any interference by this Court, the appeal does not raise
any substantial questions of law for consideration.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
March 25, 2009
R.S.