Workman Can't Claim Promotion When His Services Are Not Regularized, Punjab And Haryana High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

The bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman who was allegedly not promoted by the Management despite being in a higher position in the seniority list. The suit for declaration was also filed 10 years later from the date of the impugned order, which was deemed to be time-barred.

Brief Facts:

The Workman was employed by the Management as a T-mate. His service record was good, and he was awaiting a promotion to the post of an Operator. However, the Management promoted someone else as the Operator, despite the Workman being on a senior level. The Workman alleged that the Management bypassed the seniority list and did not consider his name for promotion. Further, no notice was given to him regarding any change in the seniority list. Subsequently, the Workman submitted a departmental representation regarding the alleged violation of seniority and illegal promotion. Despite the representation, the Management did not respond to his grievances. Therefore, the Workman sent a legal notice to the Management. However, no reply was received.

Therefore, the matter was raised before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak. It decreed in favour of the Workman, granting consequential relief and mandatory injunction against the Management. However, the Management filed an appeal before the Court of Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. The appellate court accepted the appeal filed by the Management, reversing the judgment and decree of the lower court.

Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed a regular second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (“High Court”).

In response, the Management argued that promotions were based on work performance and recommendations rather than seniority. Additionally, it argued that the other workman who was promoted possessed the necessary qualifications and experience for the promoted position, unlike the aggrieved Workman.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar [1991(4) SCC 1], where the SC unequivocally established that the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration is three years. The Supreme Court underscored that the Court's function upon presentation of the plaint is to ascertain whether the plaintiff falls within the prescribed time limit, determining when the "right to sue" accrued.

The High Court noted that the Workman challenged the order dated 31.07.1981, through a suit for declaration filed on 07.01.1991, a period of approximately ten years later, which the High Court held to be 'hopelessly time barred'. The High Court held that the promotions of T-mates were based on their work performance and recommendations, with the other T-mate possessing relevant experience and qualifications for the promoted position. Conversely, it noted that the Workman lacked experience in the relevant field, failing to establish the arbitrariness or voidness of the promotion order. Notably, it noted that the Workman admitted to not working regularly in 1981 when the order was passed, with his services only being regularized on 01.01.1987. Therefore, the High Court held that the Workman could not claim promotion from a date when his services were not regularized.

Therefore, the High Court held that there was no substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Ram Mehar Singh vs The State of Haryana and others

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 139

Case Number:RSA-2754 of 1998 (O&M)

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Gaurav Mohunta, Mr Nishant Arora, and Mr Chirag Kundu

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Ravi Dutt Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order