RSA-2444-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA State of Punjab and anr. Kanta Rani CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Ms. Mr. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. Challenge in the decree dated 27.11.2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.03.20 Judge (Jr. Divn.), 2. Brief facts of the case employed as Center and was posted as such at Government Primary School, Jhoke, Hari Har Bl Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. She retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation service as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and afte She was regularized on the same post on 01.04.1977. The next promotion for the post of JBT Teacher is to the post of basis of seniority. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2444 Date of Decision and anr. vs HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA . Pratibha Bali, AAG, Punjab Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is 27.11.2014 passed by learned Addl. the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree 27.03.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge ( allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.03.20 r. Divn.), Ferozepur is set aside. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit Center Head Teacher in Education Department in State of Punjab and was posted as such at Government Primary School, Jhoke, Hari Har Bl Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. She retired from service on attaining superannuation on 29.02.2012. The respondent initially joined the service as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after due selection by the Selection Committee of the department. She was regularized on the same post on 01.04.1977. The next promotion for the post of JBT Teacher is to the post of Center Head Teacher which is made on the basis of seniority. Since her work and conduct and ACR were good, she was 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 4-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 ......Appellants …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA Advocate, for the respondent. present regular second appeal is to judgment and Addl. District Judge-III, Ferozepur the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ferozepur, is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned Civil as per civil suit are that the respondent was Head Teacher in Education Department in State of Punjab and was posted as such at Government Primary School, Jhoke, Hari Har Block, Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. She retired from service on attaining on 29.02.2012. The respondent initially joined the service as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 after being sponsored by the Employment r due selection by the Selection Committee of the department. She was regularized on the same post on 01.04.1977. The next promotion for the Head Teacher which is made on the and conduct and ACR were good, she was 1 judgment and Ferozepur the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree , is Civil respondent was Head Teacher in Education Department in State of Punjab ock, Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. She retired from service on attaining on 29.02.2012. The respondent initially joined the service as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 after being sponsored by the Employment r due selection by the Selection Committee of the department. She was regularized on the same post on 01.04.1977. The next promotion for the Head Teacher which is made on the Gaurav Arora 2025.08.22 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2444-2015 firstly promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and ther Center Head Teacher on 20.12.2011. Since her juniors were promoted prior to her without considering her, she filed the civil suit challenging the same before the learned Civil Judge ( judgment and decree dated 27.03.201 before the learned judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by is against law and facts on record. challenged the seniority list and the civil suit was filed by her after a dela years. She, therefore prays that the present 4. Per contra, judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by III, Ferozepur and contends that the present 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 6. Admittedly, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1997. She was promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and thereafter as Center Head Teacher on 20.12.2011. She retired from service on 29.02.2012 and juniors to her and Center Head Teacher before 7. Vide letter dated 25.09.2005, juniors for promotion to the post of Head Teacher 20.11.2001, she was sen (O&M) firstly promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and ther Teacher on 20.12.2011. Since her juniors were promoted prior to her without considering her, she filed the civil suit challenging the same before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ferozepur, which was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014. She then filed appeal against the same learned Addl. District Judge-III, Ferozepur, which was allowed, vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014. Hence, the present regular second Learned counsel for the appellants decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned Addl. is against law and facts on record. She further contends that the respondent never challenged the seniority list and the civil suit was filed by her after a dela She, therefore prays that the present regular second Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by and contends that the present regular second I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. Admittedly, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1997. She was promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and thereafter as Center Head Teacher on 20.12.2011. She retired from service on 29.02.2012 and juniors to her were promoted as Head Teacher Head Teacher before her promotion. Vide letter dated 25.09.2005, juniors ion to the post of Head Teacher. Admittedly, as per seniority list dated 20.11.2001, she was senior, therefore, she moved a representation to the 2 firstly promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and thereafter to the post of Teacher on 20.12.2011. Since her juniors were promoted prior to her without considering her, she filed the civil suit challenging the same before Ferozepur, which was dismissed, vide 4. She then filed appeal against the same Ferozepur, which was allowed, vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014. Hence, the present regular second contends that the judgment and Addl. District Judge-III, Ferozepur She further contends that the respondent never challenged the seniority list and the civil suit was filed by her after a delay of 04 regular second appeal be allowed. learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge- regular second appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. Admittedly, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1997. She was promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and thereafter as Center Head Teacher on 20.12.2011. She retired were promoted as Head Teacher Vide letter dated 25.09.2005, juniors to the respondent were invited . Admittedly, as per seniority list dated ior, therefore, she moved a representation to the 2 to the post of Teacher on 20.12.2011. Since her juniors were promoted prior to her without considering her, she filed the civil suit challenging the same before Ferozepur, which was dismissed, vide 4. She then filed appeal against the same Ferozepur, which was allowed, vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014. Hence, the present regular second judgment and Ferozepur She further contends that the respondent never y of 04 learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of - Admittedly, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1997. She was promoted as Head Teacher on 30.10.2009 and thereafter as Center Head Teacher on 20.12.2011. She retired were promoted as Head Teacher were invited . Admittedly, as per seniority list dated Gaurav Arora 2025.08.22 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2444-2015 appellants. Kuldeep Singh was examined as DW1 who stated that seniority list informed to the concerned teachers by taking their signatures. Rule 5-B of the order 8018/S11 (ASO) basis shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining among the ad hoc shall be senior and while giving seniority, not counted. Further seniority list was never circulated or conveyed to the respondent or circulated in the school where respondent was posted. Further letter dated 25.09. 8. As per re and was regularized on 01.04.1977. Her services on 29.10.1973 was not considered whi notification No. 8018/ When the respondent came to know about the promotion of other immediately moved representation. Admittedly, as per record was senior to the other teachers who were promoted on 26.10.2004 as Head Teacher and Center Kuldeep Singh is fully supporting the case of the respondent came to know about the seniority list in the year 2011 and filed suit in the year 2013, Court that the suit was not barred by limitation. 9. As per statement of DW1, the seniority list was issued on 20.11.2001 and before that it was never issued. Further seniority list was sent to the office of District concerned. It was the duty of Block Office to get the acknowledgment from the teacher concerned. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the (O&M) appellants. Kuldeep Singh was examined as DW1 who stated that seniority list informed to the concerned teachers by taking their signatures. of the order of President of India prescribed S11 (ASO)-74/33252 dated 15.10.1974, the basis shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining hoc employees themselves and the person having longer service and while giving seniority, ad hoc not counted. Further seniority list was never circulated or conveyed to the respondent or circulated in the school where respondent was posted. Further ated 25.09.2005 was also not conveyed to the respondent. As per record, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1977. Her services on 29.10.1973 was not considered while preparing the seniority list notification No. 8018/S11 (ASO)-74/33252 dated hen the respondent came to know about the promotion of other immediately moved representation. Admittedly, as per record senior to the other teachers who were promoted on 26.10.2004 as Head Center Head Teacher on 17.04.2008. The statement of DW1 Kuldeep Singh is fully supporting the case of the came to know about the seniority list in the year 2011 and filed suit therefore, it has rightly been held Court that the suit was not barred by limitation. As per statement of DW1, the seniority list was issued on 20.11.2001 and before that it was never issued. Further seniority list was sent to the office of District Education Office of Block Office and not to the teacher It was the duty of Block Office to get the acknowledgment from the teacher concerned. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the 3 appellants. Kuldeep Singh was examined as DW1 who stated that seniority list is informed to the concerned teachers by taking their signatures. Further that, as per prescribed vide notification No. the services rendered on ad hoc basis shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining inter se seniority employees themselves and the person having longer service hoc service of the respondent was not counted. Further seniority list was never circulated or conveyed to the respondent or circulated in the school where respondent was posted. Further 5 was also not conveyed to the respondent. cord, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 and was regularized on 01.04.1977. Her services on ad hoc period since le preparing the seniority list, as per 74/33252 dated 15.10.1974 referred to above. hen the respondent came to know about the promotion of other teachers, she immediately moved representation. Admittedly, as per record, the respondent senior to the other teachers who were promoted on 26.10.2004 as Head Head Teacher on 17.04.2008. The statement of DW1 Kuldeep Singh is fully supporting the case of the respondent. Since the came to know about the seniority list in the year 2011 and filed suit herefore, it has rightly been held by the learned First Appellate As per statement of DW1, the seniority list was issued on 20.11.2001 and before that it was never issued. Further seniority list was sent to Education Office of Block Office and not to the teacher It was the duty of Block Office to get the acknowledgment from the teacher concerned. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the 3 is s per ide notification No. hoc seniority employees themselves and the person having longer service service of the respondent was not counted. Further seniority list was never circulated or conveyed to the respondent or circulated in the school where respondent was posted. Further cord, the respondent joined as JBT Teacher on 29.10.1973 period since r . teachers, she the respondent senior to the other teachers who were promoted on 26.10.2004 as Head Head Teacher on 17.04.2008. The statement of DW1 the came to know about the seniority list in the year 2011 and filed suit by the learned First Appellate As per statement of DW1, the seniority list was issued on 20.11.2001 and before that it was never issued. Further seniority list was sent to Education Office of Block Office and not to the teacher It was the duty of Block Office to get the acknowledgment from the teacher concerned. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the Gaurav Arora 2025.08.22 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2444-2015 respondent at any stage of record to prove that it was either sent to school where the respondent was posted. 10. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellants shows that there is no specific denial to the fact that the respondent was senior to Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and Usha, appellant was aw respondent was totally ignored while promoting her juniors. 11. Normally employee in the department. and all other employees namely Usha are admittedly juniors to the respondent. When the respondent was never conveyed about the seniority list as well as order vide which juniors were promoted, then the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the suit was within limitation and as per record, the respondent has rightly been held entitled to consequential service benefits 12. In view of the above, and decree dated Ferozepur and the same is upheld is dismissed. 13. Parties are left to bear their own accordingly. 14. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. July 31, 2025 Gaurav Arora (O&M) respondent at any stage of issuance of seniority record to prove that it was either sent to school where the respondent was posted. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellants shows that there is no specific denial to the fact that the respondent was senior to Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and Usha, ware of the fact that the respondent respondent was totally ignored while promoting her juniors. Normally, the seniority list is fixed from the service of the employee in the department. As per record, the responde and all other employees namely Daya Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and are admittedly juniors to the respondent. When the respondent was never conveyed about the seniority list as well as order vide which juniors were then the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the within limitation and as per record, the respondent has rightly been held entitled to consequential service benefits. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the and decree dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned and the same is upheld. Accordingly the Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 seniority list. Nor there is anything on record to prove that it was either sent to school where the respondent was posted. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellants shows that there is no specific denial to the fact that the respondent was senior to Daya Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and Usha, which again proves that the respondent was senior. Further, the respondent was totally ignored while promoting her juniors. the seniority list is fixed from the service of the As per record, the respondent joined on 29.10.1973 Daya Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and are admittedly juniors to the respondent. When the respondent was never conveyed about the seniority list as well as order vide which juniors were then the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the within limitation and as per record, the respondent has rightly been held I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Addl. District Judge-III, Accordingly the present regular second appeal costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE : Yes : Yes 4 there is anything on record to prove that it was either sent to school where the respondent was posted. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellants shows that a which again proves that the e the seniority list is fixed from the service of the nt joined on 29.10.1973 Daya Rani, Krishana Rani, Sunita Rani and are admittedly juniors to the respondent. When the respondent was never conveyed about the seniority list as well as order vide which juniors were then the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the within limitation and as per record, the respondent has rightly been held judgment , appeal costs. Decree sheet be prepared Gaurav Arora 2025.08.22 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document