- (1.) Suit for declaration filed by the respondent was decreed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 6.1.1993 and the impugned order promoting private defendants as Junior Engineer-II over and above him was declared null and void. The respondent was held entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-II and his services deemed to have been regularized with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 30.8.1976. The decree was challenged by the appellants by filing first appeal, which was disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 19.8.1995 by modifying the decree passed by the learned trial Court. The respondent was held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-II and in case he was found fit for promotion, he was to be promoted and his seniority qua private defendants to be considered and fixed in accordance with the service rules governing the employees. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants, who were defendants No. 1 to 4 in the suit, filed the present second appeal before this Court.
(2.) The case of the respondent in the plaint submitted by him was that he passed I.T.I. examination with Diploma in Electricity. He joined as Lineman in the Electricity Board on ad hoc basis on 30.8.1976. Although he performed his duties honestly and diligently but his services were later on terminated. He challenged the order of termination in the Labour Court. His plea was accepted and the termination order was declared null and void. He again joined his duties as Lineman. He claimed that the services of his juniors had been regularized by the Board. He challenged the action of the Board by filing a civil suit, which was still pending when the Board promoted private defendants, who were all junior to him, as Junior Engineers-II, whereas he was ignored. Accordingly, he filed a suit for declaration that the impugned order promoting the private defendants and ignoring him was illegal, null and void and not binding upon him.
(3.) The suit was contested by the Board by pleading in the written statement that the plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit for an identical relief, which was still pending, therefore, the present suit was not maintainable. The impugned order had been passed before filing of written statement by the Board in the earlier suit. Therefore, the plaintiff could amend his plaint by way of claiming the relief of promotion. However, the same was not done. Therefore, the present suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. The Board, however, denied that the work and conduct of the plaintiff was satisfactory. Rather the same was adjudged as unsatisfactory, as a result whereof his services were terminated. After the order of termination was set aside by the Labour Court, the plaintiff rejoined as Lineman but still his services had not been regularized. Final decision regarding the regularization was to be taken after the decision of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff and, that too, as and when his turn matured. The Board also denied that the private defendants had been illegally promoted as Junior Engineers-II.;