Discharging duties of a higher position due to exigencies does not entitle an employee to promotion as a matter of right.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.468 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.468 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.468 of 2000 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4. The plaintiff has laid the suit to declare that he is entitled to get the promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, Grade II and shift in charge with effect from 26.11.1992 and to direct the respondents to consider and promote him to the post of Assistant Manager, Grade II, and shift in charge with effect from 26.11.1992.

5. According to the plaintiff, he has been appointed as a Supervisor in the defendants' Textile on 07.06.1986 and further though he was appointed as Assistant Manager, Grade II on 26.11.1992, however, he was paid only the wages for Supervisor during the medical leave availed by the Assistant Manager, Grade II and on the demise of the Assistant Manager, Grade II and therefore, according to the plaintiff, since he had been working as Assistant Manager, Grade II, for a long period, the defendants should have considered him fit for promotion with effect from 26.11.1992 and as the defendants failed to give promotion, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for necessary reliefs.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denied that the plaintiff was appointed as Assistant Manager, Grade II on 26.11.1992 and also denied that he has been engaged against a regular vacancy and the plaintiff has been working only as a Supervisor and not as Assistant Manager, Grade II as put forth by him and considering the staff position of the defendants' Textile, the Mill is highly over staffed and the defendants are endeavoring to reduce the excess staff and officers before considering the question of promotion and existing vacancies and further put forth that the writ petitions are pending in the High Court and therefore, at such a stage, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for promotion and further, according to the defendants, only after taking into consideration the various factors, promotion would be given to any employee and when it is not the case of the plaintiff that he has been overlooked and his juniors have been promoted, according to the defendants, the plaintiff's suit is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid.

9. The second appeal has not been admitted and only notice of admission has been ordered. On that basis, the defendants have entered appearance in the second appeal.

10. From the pleas and the submissions put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, it is evident that the plaintiff is seeking the claim of promotion as Assistant Manager, Grade II and shift in charge with effect from 26.11.1992 on the footing that he had been already discharging the duties of the abovesaid post with effect from 26.11.1992. The abovesaid claim of the plaint