- (1.) The defendant Pepsu Road Transport Corporation is in appeal. It has lost before the learned first appellate court. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs Vinod Mehta, Puran Chand, Sham Lal and Vijay Kumar, who were working as Storekeepers with the defendant-Corporation. They claimed that the order dated August 31, 1995, passed by the Corporation, making promotions of certain Diesel Pump Clerks and Assistant Storekeepers to the post of Senior Assistant, was illegal, bad, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice. The plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to promotion as Senior Assistants being senior to the persons who had been granted promotions. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court. They took up the matter in appeal before the learned first appellate court.
(2.) The learned appellate court specifically placed reliance upon the order Ex.P-2, whereby certain Assistant Storekeepers, who were shown junior to the plaintiffs in the seniority list Ex.P-5, were granted promotion. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was held by the learned first appellate court that since the plaintiffs are senior to the persons, who had been promoted to the next higher post, therefore, they also had a right to be considered for promotion from the date when the persons junior to them, had been considered for promotion vide order dated August 31, 1995. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and their suit was decreed. During the course of the present appeal, an order dated July 13, 2004 was passed by the Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. Vide the aforesaid order Nasib Chand, Puran Chand, Pritam Singh, Sham Lal and Vijay Sood have been promoted as Assistants with effect from October 15, 1979. On the passing of the aforesaid order of promotion, the learned counsel appearing for aforesaid plaintiffsrespondents made a statement that the claim of the aforesaid plaintiffs had been satisfied and they do not claim any further relief than what had been granted vide order dated July 13, 2004. Consequently, the appeal qua the aforesaid persons was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order of this court dated November 25, 2005.
(3.) The appeal, thus, remains alive with regard to plaintiff Vinod Mehta, only. I have heard Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation and Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. At this stage, it may be noticed that a civil miscellaneous application bearing no.1748-C of 2006 has been filed by Avtar Singh, Satlesh Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Prem Das, who are working as Senior Assistants with the Corporation. They have prayed for their impleadment as party-respondents in the present appeal. It has been claimed by them that the aforesaid applicants have challenged the order dated July 13, 2004 passed by the Corporation, whereby the promotions had been granted to Nasib Chand, Puran Chand, Pritam Singh, Sham Lal and Vijay Sood, by filing writ petitions. It has also been averred in the application that the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No.13577 of 2004 and Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 2005 are pending in this court. In these circumstances, a claim has been made that the aforesaid applicants have a right to be heard. It has also been claimed that the appellant-Corporation is going to finalise the seniority.;