IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Jarnail Singh .....Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Rajpura and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Ms. Sushma Varma Syal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant/plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal, impugning the judgments and decrees dated 16.11.1988 and 05.11.1998, passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively, whereby his claim challenging the promotion order of respondent/defendant No.3-Gurdip Singh, dated 17.04.1984 and seeking his promotion with effect from the date respondent No.3 was promoted, has been rejected and the suit filed by him has been dismissed.

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

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff joined service as Octroi Peon (Sewadar) in Municipal Committee, Rajpura on 06.01.1978. His services were regularised and confirmed with effect from 06.01.1982. Defendant No.3 initially joined the Punjab State Small Scale Industries Corporation, Chandigarh, on 11.06.1976 as Trade-mate (work-charge) and was confirmed in that Corporation on 03.08.1981. Thereafter, on 04.08.1981, he was transferred to the Municipal Committee, Rajpura. His services as Trade- mate were confirmed on 07.12.1983 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Octroi Clerk on 17.04.1984. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he, being senior most and most qualified Sewadar (Octroi) with the defendant- committee, was entitled to be promoted as Octroi Clerk in preference to defendant No.3, with effect from 17.04.1984.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement stating therein that the plaintiff was appointed as Octroi Peon and joined his duties on 06.01.1978 and was confirmed with effect from 06.01.1982. It was further stated that promotion of defendant No.3 was justified as the Municipal Committee is bound by the policy decision of the Government of Punjab in regard to matters of appointment and promotion. A promotion quota of Class IV employees is 15% and no promotion can be made till the completion of 05 years of continuous service as peon. The claim of the plaintiff is not as per rules in force. Defendant No.3 is Class II Matriculate and is serving in the previous capacity since 11.06.1976. He was previously serving in the Punjab State Small Scale Industries Corporation and was transferred to Municipal Committee, Rajpura on 04.08.1981. His promotion has been made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority keeping in view his length of service.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed replication denying the averments made in the written statements.

6. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-

“1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

2- Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff for filing the present suit? OPD

3- Whether no notice required u/s 80 CPC was served upon the defendant.committee by the plaintiff prior to the institution of the present suit? OPD 1 and 2

4- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-4

5- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous and has been filed simply to harass the defendants and therefore, the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC? OPD-4

6- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD-4

7- Relief.”

7. Issues No.1, 2 and 4 were considered together and the learned Trial Court, after considering the necessary evidence and documents, returned the following finding:-

“10- The main question to be determined is as to who is senior among the plaintiff and defendant No.3?. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the