IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Superintending Engineer, H.S.E.B. & another .....Appellants Versus Sita Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgments and decrees dated 10.09.1997 and 26.07.2000, passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court respectively, whereby the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff for promotion to the post of Lineman with effect from 18.05.1993 and treating him as senior to Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram, Dalip Singh, Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal, has been accepted with all consequential benefits.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff was initially appointed as Assistant Lineman, vide appointment letter dated 09.04.1973 (Ex.P1) and his services were regularised, vide order dated 15.05.1979 (Ex.D1). Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram, Dalip Singh, Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal were regularly appointed as Assistant Lineman on 17.07.1973 (Ex.P2 to P6). Jaswant Singh, Bhagat Ram and Dalip Singh were promoted to the post of Lineman, vide order dated 18.05.1993, whereas Ram Pal and Jiwan Lal were promoted as Lineman, vide order dated 12.10.1993. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 14.06.1993 claiming seniority over the aforesaid five persons and seeking promotion to the post of Lineman with effect from 18.05.1993 at par with those persons. The suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.1997, mainly on the ground that the length of continuous service of respondent No.1/plaintiff was required to be reckoned from his initial date of appointment i.e. 09.04.1973. The First Appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 26.07.2000, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that neither respondent No.1/plaintiff ever challenged the seniority list nor the said five persons were impleaded as party respondents in the suit. It is further submitted that adhoc/temporary service is not countable towards seniority and that respondent No.1/plaintiff was rightly promoted as Lineman, vide order dated 26.06.1996. It is argued that respondent No.1/plaintiff has no right to claim promotion with effect from 18.05.1993 at par with the said five persons, as they were regularly appointed as Assistant Lineman on 17.07.1973 and were, therefore, senior to respondent No.1/plaintiff. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malook Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others : 2021(4) SCT 305 and Rashi Mani Mishra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : 2021(3) SCT 518, wherein it was held that services rendered by adhoc employees prior to their regularisation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgments in RSA No.52 of 2005 titled as 'Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula & others v. Sohan Lal and others', decided on 24.01.2006 and RSA No.2127 of 1998 titled as 'Haryana State Electricity Board, through its Secretary/Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula v. Dharamvir', decided on

12.01.2000

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly, respondent No.1/plaintiff was initially appointed on temporary basis on 09.04.1973 and his servi