"Cannot Claim Promotion From Date When Services Were Not Regularised": Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Workman's Plea

In a recent Order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a workman cannot claim promotion at a date when his services were not regularized.

The Bench of Justice Namit Kumar dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a workman who alleged not being promoted by the management despite seniority. The suit for declaration, filed a decade after the impugned order, was deemed time-barred.

The case revolved around a workman employed by the management as a T-mate. Despite his seniority and good service record, the management promoted another individual to the position of Operator, bypassing him. The workman contended that his name was overlooked in the seniority list, and he wasn't notified of any changes to it.

Following this, the Counsel for the workman submitted that a departmental representation addressing the alleged violation of seniority and illegal promotion. However, the management remained unresponsive, prompting the workman to send a legal notice, which went unanswered.

The dispute escalated to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, which ruled in favour of the workman, granting relief and injunction against the management. Nonetheless, the management appealed this decision to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which overturned the lower Court's Judgment.

Subsequently, the aggrieved workman filed a regular second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The management argued that promotions were based on performance and recommendations, not merely seniority. It asserted that the promoted individual possessed the requisite qualifications and experience, unlike the aggrieved workman.

The High Court, while referring to a Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar [1991(4) SCC 1], highlighted the three-year limitation period for filing a suit for declaration. The Bench stressed that the Court's role is to ascertain whether the plaintiff falls within the prescribed time limit, determining the accrual of the "right to sue."

Examining the timeline, the Court noted the workman's suit filed ten years after the impugned order of 31.07.1981, which it deemed 'hopelessly time-barred'. "In the present case, appellant-plaintiff challenged the order dated 31.07.1981, by way of suit for declaration, which was filed on 07.01.1991 i.e. after a period of about ten years, which is hopelessly time barred," the Court said.

The Court emphasized that promotions for T-mates were merit-based, with the promoted individual possessing relevant qualifications and experience. Conversely, the workman lacked the necessary experience, failing to demonstrate the arbitrariness of the promotion order.

The Court observed that the workman's services were only regularized on January 1, 1987, admitting to irregular employment before that. Consequently, the Court ruled that the workman couldn't claim promotion from a period when his services weren't regularized.

Concluding that "no substantial question of law arose in the Appeal," the Court dismissed it accordingly.

Cause Title: Ram Mehar Singh v. The State of Haryana and Others

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate Gaurav Mohunta, Nishant Arora, Chirag Kundu

Respondent: Advocate Ravi Dutt Sharma (DAG)

Click here to read/download the Order