Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
VIPAN KUMAR – Respondent
/889/2021
A candidate who is selected for a post on the basis of merit is entitled to the appointment from the date the lower-merit candidates are appointed, along with seniority, pay fixation, and other consequential benefits.
Headnote:
APPOINTMENT - SENIORITY - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - [The grant of relief to the respondent-plaintiff by the Courts below for appointment in service with retrospective effect cannot be faulted with, especially when, a candidate lower in merit has already been appointed in the year 2001 in another department.]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff was selected for the post of Senior Assistant in 2001 but was not given the appointment until 2005, while other candidates lower in merit were appointed before him. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking appointment from the date the lower-merit candidates were appointed and other consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the appointment from the date the lower-merit candidates were appointed, along with seniority, pay fixation, and other consequential benefits.
Issues: Whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the appointment from the date the lower-merit candidates were appointed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the rules governing the service, which provide that direct appointment is to be given on the basis of merit obtained by a candidate in the direct recruitment. The court also noted that the respondent-plaintiff was not given any valid justification for the delay in his appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State challenging the judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court.
RSA No. 889 of 2021 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(248)
RSA No. 889 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.01.2023
State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
Vipan Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:
Ms. Anju Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
The present regular second appeal has been filed by the State
challenging the judgment of the trial court dated 11.08.2016, by which the
claim of the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed for giving benefits of
seniority, pay fixation, pension, promotion and other consequential benefits
with effect from the date, persons junior to him in merit were appointed for
the post of Senior Assistant, which judgment has been modified by the
lower appellate court vide order dated 26.10.2020 only to the extent that the
respondent-plaintiff will be entitled for the arrears of salary 03 years 02
months prior to the filing of the civil suit and not for whole of the period.
The facts in the present case are that the posts of Senior
Assistant were advertised by the Subordinate Selection Board, Punjab in
KANCHAN
2023.01.18 17:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmentt
RSA No. 889 of 2021 (O&M)
2
which the respondent-plaintiff competed and had obtained 107 marks and
was placed at Sr. No. 29 in the merit list. Another person, namely,
Shamsher Singh, who also secured 107 marks, was placed at Sr. No. 28 in
the merit list and said Shamsher Singh was issued appointment letter on
18.09.2001 and he joined for the post in question immediately. Thereafter,
on 09.11.2001, the name of the respondent-plaintiff was recommended by
the Subordinate Selection Board to the Language Department, Punjab for
appointment but no appointment was issued to the respondent-plaintiff and
other candidates, which grievance was raised by some other similarly
situated candidates before this Court in CWP No. 7962 of 2002, wherein, a
direction was given to the respondents to give the appointments to the
candidates, who were selected by the Subordinate Selection Board on
09.11.2001.
Though, similarly situated candidates were given appointment
on 04.09.2003, the respondent-plaintiff was not given the same until
28.09.2005 on which date the respondent-plaintiff was allowed to join as a
Senior Assistant on 04.10.2005. The prayer of the respondent-plaintiff was
that as there was one joint selection from various departments in the Govt.
of Punjab and the names were recommended according to the merit and the
candidates lower in merit had already been appointed prior to 28.09.2005
and a candidate, namely, Shamsher Singh immediately above the
respondent-plaintiff in merit was appointed on 18.09.2001, the respondent-
plaintiff be also given the appointment from the said date as, keeping in
view the rules governing the service, the candidates are entitled for fixation
of seniority keeping in view the merit obtained in the direct recruitment.
As the said benefit was not being extended to the respondent-
KANCHAN
2023.01.18 17:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmentt
RSA No. 889 of 2021 (O&M)
3
plaintiff, the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit on 17.09.2011, which
was decreed in his favour on 11.08.2016 to hold that the respondent-
plaintiff is entitled for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f.
18.09.2001 along with seniority, pay fixation as well as promotion from the
said date keeping in view the benefit extended to the similarly situated
employees and grant of pension under Old Pension Scheme, 2001 as well as
the arrears will also carry 12% interest per annum. The said order was
assailed in appeal by the State of Punjab (appellants herein) and the appeal
came to be decided on 26.10.2020 by which, though the benefit of
a
