The cause of action for a suit for declaration and permanent injunction arises on the date when the plaintiff's right is infringed, and not from the date of the event that led to the infringement.

1. (Oral) - This revision has been directed against the order dated 30.8.1990, passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1376/88, whereby the application of the petitioner submitted under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner the RSEB (for short the Board), with the allegations that he was initially appointed vide order No. 19 dated 30.3.1952, as Asstt. Engineer, Grade A; promoted on the post of Executive Engineer, vide order dated 24.4.1960 and confirmed on the said post vide order dated 29.12.1965, that on 17.4.73 Mr. M.S. Bika, who was junior to the non-petitioner was promoted on adhoc and temporary basis as Executive Engineer but his case was not considered. It was further alleged that vide order dated 29.9.1973, Shri B.D. Vijay, who was junior to the non-petitioner was temporarily promoted but at that time also the case of the non-petitioner was not considered. It was further mentioned that vide order dated 11.2.1975, seven junior executive engineers were promoted on adhoc basis but the case of the non-petitioners was not considered for promotion. It was also mentioned that a Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the 'D.P.C.') was held from Feb. 1975 to May, 1975, in order to promote 13 Supdt. Engineers but again his case was not taken into consideration. The Board in its 220th meeting held on 20.6.75, approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It was also decided that the case of the plaintiff non petitioner may be reconsidered within one year but his case was never considered inspite of the resolution passed in the aforesaid meeting of the Board though the case of Sh. D.S. Bhargava was considered later on.

3. In Para No. 19, it was further mentioned that on the basis of recommendations of the D.P.C. he was promoted as Supdt. Engineer vide order dated 23.5.81. The plaintiff retired on 31.10.87 after attaining age of superannuation. In Para No. 20 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the Board did not implement the resolution passed in its 220th meeting dated 20.6.75. Had the said resolution been implemented, the non-petitioner would have become Addl. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer by this time. The non-petitioner was given assurance from time to time by the Board but he was never promoted. After retirement, he met the Chairman and Secretary of the Board and they assured him all benefits but he was never given benefits. In Para No. 23, it was specifically mentioned that the assurance given by the aforesaid persons came to an end when they issued an office order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88, in which the junior persons were shown as senior to the plaintiff non-petitioner. The plaintiff non-petitioner served last representation on 18.8.88 but the Board did not reply the same. In Para No. 26, the plaintiff non-petitioner mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose on 4.4.1988. The plaintiff non-petitioner prayed as under :

(d) "fd oknh lu~ 1975 ls gh cksMZ dh 220oha fefVax fnukad 20-6-1975 ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds in ij inuks=fr vius dfu"B Jh ,e ,l Nhdk vkSj ch0Mh0 fot; vkfn ds vuqlkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk ikcUn fd;k tkosa fd os oknh dks cksMZ dh 220oha fefVax ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ml le; dh ofj"Brk ekinaM ds vuqlkj dUlhMj dj vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, mldks vkfFkZd ykHk o inksUufr ds ykHk (mi eq[; vfHk;Urk] vfrfjDr eq[; vfHk;Urk ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk) ds in ds ykHk tc tc muds dfu"Bksa dks fn;s] rc ls fnyok;k tkosaA([k) [kpkZ eqdnek fnyok;k tkosaA(x) vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; oknh ds i{k esa mfpr le>sa] fnyokbZ tk;saA"

4. That on 31.5.90, the Board submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. mentioning therein that fro in a bare perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the cause of action if any accrued to the plainti