IMPORTANT POINT
When the employees on appointment are not put in different heads, cadres, circles or divisions for the purpose of seniority, each one of them would be equally entitled to be considered for promotion.

Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

Leave granted.

1) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment and order of the Chandigarh High Court dated 28.8.2007 which arises in the following circumstances. On 27.6.1984, Rameshwar Dass, respondent before us, was appointed on the post of Fitter Coolie and subsequently his services were regularized on 1.4.1993. Meanwhile three other employees were appointed namely, Tej Pal, Rajinder Kumar and Dharmapal on 5.7.1984, 19.11.1984 and 20.11.1984 respectively, and were promoted on 26.3.1987 to the post of Water Pump Operator Grade-II and regularized on 1.4.1993.

2) The respondent went before the Trial Court with the principal plea, that, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Water Pump Operator (WPO) Grade-II from the date when his juniors were promoted to the same post and for other consequential reliefs. The claim was opposed by the State of Haryana, stating that the respondent has no locus standi for filing the suit as there is no cause of action and also it is barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the co-employees of the respondent, who have been promoted, were appointed in different circles and did not belong to the Karnal Circle, where the respondent is continuing his service. Trial Court recorded that the appellants did not produce any seniority list being maintained at Divisional Level or Circle Level which could show that Tej Pal, who was appointed just after the respondent, was not junior to the respondent on the day when he was promoted as WPO on 26.3.1987. Similarly is the case with other employees named Dharam Pal who was appointed on 20.11.1984 and Rajinder Kumar who was appointed on 19.11.1984. Therefore, on the given date, respondent was senior to the other employees, who were promoted. Regarding locus standi and cause of action to file the suit is concerned, it was held that the cause of action is recurring and accrues every month when the benefit for promotion is denied to the respondent. Accordingly, the Civil Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court granting relief to the respondent herein to the extent that he may be promoted to the post of WPO from 26.3.1987 and his salary accordingly be fixed.

3) Against the said judgment the appellants went before the Appellate Court contending that the seniority of work charge employees is maintained at Divisional Office Level and that of regular employees is maintained at Circle Office Level. Since respondent and other co-employees being work charge employees, at the given time, their seniority was being maintained in respective divisions, therefore, there was no necessity of maintaining seniority in different divisions collectively.

4) The First Appellate Court affirming the findings of the Trial Court observed that the respondent was appointed as Fitter Coolie on 28.6.1984 in the Karnal division and was regularized on 22.1.1994 on the same post and other co-employees, Tej Pal was appointed as electrical helper on 5.7.1984 in the Karnal division and was promoted to the post of WPO 22.1.1985, but was regularized only on 1.2.1994 and Rajinder Kumar was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 19.11.1984 in the Kaithal division and was promoted to the post of WPO after being regularized on 21.1.1985. The Deputy Superintendent of appellants department admitted that prior to 1998 all the employees such as Fitter Coolie, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Keyman etc. used to be promoted as WPO. Thus, it becomes evident that respondent was senior to other co-employees.

5) Another similar case was brought to the notice of the First Appellate Court, Om Prakash Bairagi v. State of Haryana, wherein one Chander Prakash, junior to the Om Prakash, was promoted earlier to Om Prakash as WPO. The Trial Court in the said case held that Om Prakash was entitled to be promoted to the post of WPO from the date on which his junior Chander Prakash was promoted, which was confirmed by this Court.

6)The First Appellate Court after considering submissions of the le