J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) impugning the final judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘First Appellate Court’) in RCA 1334/2016, titled as IPGCL v. Raghubir Singh, whereby the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS No. 596050/2016 titled as Raghubir Singh v. IPGCL.

1.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. The Appellant is being referred to as the defendant and the Respondent is being referred to as plaintiff.

1.2. The plaintiff filed a suit (CS No.:164/2011) for declaration and mandatory injunction. The plaint was inter-alia seeking a declaration to the effect that plaintiff is senior to Sh. V.K. Chaudhary (the now deleted defendant no.2) for the post of Assistant Accountant, Section Officer (Accounts) and Assistant Manager (Finance). The relief of mandatory injunction sought was to the effect that defendant be directed to consider plaintiff as appointed/promoted for the post of Assistant Accountant, Section Officer (Accounts) and Assistant Manager (Finance) prior to the date of the appointment of Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and to grant all the service benefits to the plaintiff of the above said posts from an anterior date.

1.3. The Trial Court vide the judgment dated 11.08.2016 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that he was senior to Sh. V.K. Chaudhary. The Court further directed the defendant to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) and the plaintiff be given appropriate seniority. Lastly, the Trial Court directed that plaintiff is entitled to enhanced pensionary benefits in accordance with recommendations of the review DPC. The said findings of the Trial Court have been upheld by the First Appellate Court by its impugned order dated 31.10.2022.

Brief Facts

1.4. The plaintiff was appointed as permanent junior clerk on 22.01.1974 vide employment no. 15951. Whilst, Sh. V.K. Chaudhary was appointed as a senior clerk on 13.05.1989 on regular basis.

1.5. In 1988, there were 171 posts of the Assistant Accountant which were required to be filled up according to the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1978 (‘RPR 1978’). In 1988 Sh. U.B. Singh filed a civil suit no. 523/1988 seeking permanent injunction against defendant from filing up of vacancy in contravention to the RPR 1978. The said suit was disposed of on 19.05.1989 with the direction to defendant to fill up 171 posts of Assistant Accountants within six (6) months in accordance with RPR 1978. The departmental competitive examination for the said 171 vacant posts of Assistant Accountant was held on 26.12.1993, but on 15.02.1994 result of only 79 candidates was declared.

1.6. Against the said result two (2) writ petitions (WP(C) 577/1993 and WP(C) 2356/1994) were filed by the employees and during the pendency of the said petitions the defendant amended the RPR in 1995 (‘amended RPR 1995’). As per the amended RPR 1995, 80% of the posts of Assistant Accountant were to be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority and 20% were to be filled by examination. In the said writ petitions the High Court held that the result of the 79 candidates declared is valid and the remaining vacancies have to be filled up as per the amended RPR 1995. An SLP No. 12069 and 13322-23 of 1997, titled as B.L. Gupta & Ors. v. MCD1 was filed against the said judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court directed the defendant to declare the result of the remaining 92 candidates out of 171 vide orders dated 05.09.1997 and 13.10.1997. The Supreme Court directed that the vacancies which had arisen prior to