Jagroop Singh vs Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran … on 19 February, 2009

R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007                                                 1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
              CHANDIGARH

                                R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision : 19.2.2009

Jagroop Singh
                                                             .......... Appellant
                                Versus

Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
                                                            ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present :    Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate
             for the respondents.

                   ****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments

and decree dated 30.5.2005 and 30.1.2007 passed by the learned Courts

below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed.

The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for mandatory injunction

seeking direction to the respondents for correction in seniority list of the

plaintiff for the period from 1971 to 1979 and as a consequence thereof he

be promoted from the date his juniors as per the amended seniority list stood

promoted. He also prayed for release of retiral benefits due to him as the

same were not paid in spite of the fact that the plaintiff stood retired on

31.7.1999.

The suit was filed in the year 2002. One of the issues framed
R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 2

was “Whether the suit was within limitation?

The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff was claiming the

correction of seniority list of year 1979 whereas the suit was filed in the

year 2002 i.e. after retirement on 31.7.1999 and, thus, the suit was time

barred. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal and the learned

lower appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree qua the

relief of mandatory injunction for correction of the seniority list and

promotion with retrospective effect to be time barred held that the claim of

retiral benefits could not be said to be time barred and consequently

modified the decree and by way of mandatory injunction direction was

issued to the respondents to decide his claim of retiral benefits and release

the same within four months thereof.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal

raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this

Court :-

“Whether the judgments and decree passed by the
learned Courts below are perverse as it is against the
well settled law that no limitation applies to recurring
cause of action ?

In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel

for the appellant contends that the plaintiff-appellant had recurring cause of

action to claim his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and,

therefore, the learned Courts below were not correct in holding the part of

the suit to that effect to be time barred. However, this plea of the learned
R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2007 3

counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the

plaintiff-appellant that he was not aware of the seniority list while in service

when the seniority list was prepared in the year 1971 and continued till the

year 1979 and the same seniority list remained in force till retirement, it

cannot be said that the plaintiff has recurring cause of action to challenge

the seniority list as claimed.

Thus, the substantial question of law as claimed by the

plaintiff/appellant does not arise for consideration by this Court in this

appeal.

No merit.

Dismissed.

19.2.2009                                         ( VINOD K. SHARMA )
  'sp'                                                 JUDGE