P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 11913-C of 2004 : By way of the present application the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 221 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 4714 of 2004 :
(2.) A perusal of the facts of this case would show that the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that he is entitled to the selection grade of Rs. 120-175 with retrospective date from when it was granted to his juniors. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. The facts on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record have been culled out by the lower appellate court in the following manner : "After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant has failed to prove that his juniors were granted the selection grade in the scale of Rs. 120-175. As per the order dated 10.7.91 Ex.P-8 the appellant/plaintiff was placed at Sr. No. 1150 in the seniority list. The plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that Om Parkash was placed at Sr. No. 1 as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has been granted the selection grade as per the rules and seniority. The plaintiff also admitted that he was retired as Circle Head Teacher on 31.7.90. He also admitted that from 31.7.90 to 20.12.96 he has not filed any suit in the court. The plaintiff has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that he was senior to Om Parkash, Bhagwant Singh and others. The plaintiff was granted the selection grade as per his seniority list and as per the vacancies falling due w.e.f. 1.3.65. The grant of selection grade cannot be termed as pensionary benefits or retiral benefits. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others (Supra) is not applicable. The plaintiff ought to have challenged the order dated 10.7.91 within three years whereas he has filed the present suit on 19.12.96, as the learned lower court has rightly held that the suit is time barred. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned Lower Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the declaration that he is entitled to get the selection grade w.e.f. 1.3.65 as well as the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly the findings of the learned lower court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are affirmed and up-held."
(3.) A perusal of the portion of the judgment extracted above would show that the plaintiff could not bring on record any evidence to prove that he was senior to persons who were allegedly the juniors from which date he was claiming the selection grade. Still further it was found that the claim of the plaintiff was time barred as the order dated 10.7.1999 was being challenged after over a period of five years in December 2005. I find that the orders made by the courts below are on a proper assessment of the evidence. There is no question of law arising for determination by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;