- (1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent preferred by unsuccessful appellant is directed against judgement dated 22.4.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the relief claimed by the appellant is afflicted by the un-explained delay and laches. The cause of action is stated to have arisen to the appellant in the year 1986 and his claim to reckon the period spent in Shipping Corporation of India as Trainee Engineer from 1982 to 1985 has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgement which reads thus: "In the present petition, claim of the petitioner, which has been rejected vide the impugned order, is that the service rendered by him as Trainee Engineer in the Corporation from 1982 to 1985 was to be counted towards the qualifying service, while computing the eligibility condition for promotion to the next higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer. In the petition, it has not been disclosed as to what was the qualifying service, which was for promotion to the higher post, but it has been stated that while calculating the experience period required for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, one Jaspal Singh was given the benefit of the post service rendered by him in PWD (B&R) Haryana, as per Regulation 9(4) of PSEB Service of Engineer (Civil) Regulation, 1965. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has already been promoted as Assistant Engineer long back, though the exact date of promotion has not been disclosed. The petitioner was recruited directly in the respondent Board from the open market as Trainee Engineer. At the time of his first promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, he could have sought relaxation in experience in view of his past experience as Trainee Officer in the Corporation, but since he has already been promoted, therefore, now at this stage, he cannot claim for counting of the said period, particularly when he has been further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. Actually, the petitioner wanted to count the said service period in the Corporation towards his seniority in the respondent Board. Admittedly, this benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner, as he was directly appointed as Trainee Engineer from open market. The service rendered on a post in a different organisation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority on the subsequent post where the appointment was made by direct recruitment under a different employer. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondent Board. No merit. Dismissed."
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel at some length and are unable to find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has worked as Trainee Engineer in the shipping Corporation of India from 1982 to 1985 and then applied for direct appointment on the post of Trainee Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board- respondent. He was selected and appointed by the Board as Trainee Engineer. In that regard appointment letter dated 27.2.1986 (P.4) would be relevant. From the post of Trainee Engineer he was promoted as Assistant Engineer and then further to the post of Executive Engineer. The claim of the appellant that period of service from 1982 to 1985 spent as Trainee Engineer in the Shipping Corporation of India should be counted for the purposes of qualifying service for promotion has not been accepted on the ground that such claim was not made at the time of appointment in 1985-86. Even when the appellant was promoted as Assistant Engineer or Executive Engineer no such claim was made. Merely because one Gian Singh was given the benefit of service rendered by him in the PWD (B&R) , Haryana in pursuance of Regulation 9(4) of Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 would not ipso facto mean that the appellant would also be entitled to similar benefits. If any such benefit was available to the appellant then the cause of action had arisen in 1986 or at any time subsequently when he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. The appellant should have approached the Court within a reasonable time not exceeding three years from the date cause of action had arisen. In writ proceedings, the period of limitation of three years has been read by a judgement of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhai Lal Bhai, 1964 AIR(SC) 1006. The basic reason is that in writ proceedings the period of limitation cannot be more than the period prescribed for filing a civil suit. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission and is thus liable to be dismissed.
(3.) As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;