RSA-4719-2016

2023:PHHC:060451

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(229)

RSA-4719-2016

Date of Decision : 27.04.2023

Rajbir Singh Nehra

...Appellant

Versus

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

The present regular second appeal has been filed against the

judgment and decree of the courts below by which the claim raised by the

appellant-plaintiff that he is entitled for arrears for the salary from

02.09.1986 to 10.04.1997 along with interest, has been declined.,

It may be noticed that vide order dated 04.09.1997, two

persons, namely, Rajbir Singh Dahiya and the appellant herein were

promoted as Arrival Recorder with retrospective effect with the clear

indication that they will not be entitled for any arrears of salary for the

retrospective promotion. Appellant-plaintiff feeling satisfied by the said

condition imposed, did not challenge the same whereas, the other candidate,

namely, Rajbir Singh Dahiya feeling aggrieved against the non-grant of the

arrears, filed a civil suit. The civil suit filed by Rajbir Singh Dahiya was

dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.2006.

KANCHAN

2023.05.03 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

RSA-4719-2016

2023:PHHC:060451

2

Thereafter, against the judgment and decree of the trial court passed against

Rajbir Singh Dahiya, he filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and

the appeal came to be allowed on 24.11.2006 holding that Rajbir Singh

Dahiya is entitled for the salary for the intervening period. The order passed

by the lower appellate court was confirmed by this Court on 04.12.2007 and

thereafter, even the SLP filed, upheld the grant of arrears in favour of Rajbir

Singh Dahiya.

On coming to know that Rajbir Singh Dahiya has already been

granted the arrears of salary, without challenging the order dated

04.09.1997, as the limitation to challenge the said order had already expired,

suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff in the year 2010 claiming the

benefits of arrears on account of retrospective promotion on the ground that

the same has already been allowed in favour of a similarly situated

employee, namely, Rajbir Singh Dahiya, who was junior to the appellant.

Thereafter, suit was filed, which was allowed by the trial court allowing the

benefit of salary for the period from 02.09.1986 to 10.04.1997 along with

interest vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 on the ground that same

relief has already been extended to Rajbir Singh Dahiya.

Feeling aggrieved against the said decision of the trial court,

the respondent-defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate court,

which came to be decided on 09.05.2016. The lower appellate court held

that once the appellant-plaintiff had not challenged the order dated

04.09.1997 and the said order is not under challenge even now, no benefit

can be given as not challenging the order dated 04.09.1997 means

acceptance of the conditions of the said order, according to which, no

KANCHAN

2023.05.03 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

RSA-4719-2016

2023:PHHC:060451

3

benefit of arrears was to be granted. The judgment of the lower appellate

court dated 09.05.2016 is under challenge in the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that once a

benefit was already extended to a junior, who was also promoted along with

appellant-plaintiff with the similar condition, being a Welfare State, the

same relief should have also been allowed in favour of the appellant-

plaintiff, hence, the non-grant of the said benefit by the lower appellate

court by setting-aside the judgment and decree of the trial court is perverse

an