IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

[ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a) of S.C. Rules 2013]
[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
(Arising against the impugned judgment and order dated
08.05.2024 in RSA No. 4303 of 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar …Petitioner
Versus
Jasbir Singh & Anr. …Respondents

WITH
I.A. NO. _____ OF 2024
Application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of
Annexures

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS: ____________________

 INDEX

SL. Particulars of Documents Page No of the part to Remarks

NO. which it belongs
Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Court Fees

1. O/R on Limitation A A
2. Listing Proforma A1 - A2 A1- A2
3. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3
4. Index of Record of Proceeding A- 4
5. Limitation Report prepared by A- 5
the Registry
6. Defect List A- 6
7. Note Sheet NS1 to….
8. Synopsis & List of dates B-I

9. Certified copy of the impugned

Judgment and final order dated 1 – 17
08.05.2024 in RSA No. 4303 of
2016 passed by the Learned
Single Judge of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court

10. SLP with affidavit 18–31

11. ANNEXURE-P1:
True copy of the judgment
dated 14.05.2015 passed by 32-46
the Ld. Trial court, in Civil Suit
No. 147/1 of 2013.
12. ANNEXURE-P2:

True copy of the Order &

Judgement dated 19.07.2016 47- 60
passed by the 1st appeal Court
in Civil Appeal no. 91/2015

13. ANNEXURE-P3:
A true copy of the second appeal 61-83
 bearing RSA No. 4303/2016
dated:16.08.2016 filed by the
respondent no. 1 before Punjab
& Haryana High court.
14. ANNEXURE-P4:
A True copy of the show cause
notice Dated:19.06.2024 84-85
issued by respondent no. 2 to
the petitioner with its translated
copy
15. I.A. NO. _____ OF 2024
Application seeking exemption
86-89
from filing certified copies of
Annexures
16. Memo of parties before High
90
Court
17. F/M 91
18. V/A 92
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

Jasbir Singh & Anr. …Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of ______ days in filing

the same, against the impugned judgment and final order dated

08.05.2024 in RSA No. 4303 of 2016 passed by the Learned Single

Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and petition for condonation

of _______ days in has been filed.

3. There is delay of ...... days in refilling the petition and application for

condonation of ............. days delay in refilling has been filed.

(BRANCH OFFICER)

NEW DELHI
DATED: .06.2024
 B

SYNOPSIS

The Respondent No. 2 published a notice dated 07.06.2013, for the post of Share
Clerk. According to the notice, any employee interested in the position could
apply within 10 days. The qualifications required for the post were as follows:

For direct recruitment: Academic: Graduate, preferably B.Com., Knowledge

of computers is necessary. Preference for candidates with computer skills up to
O level.

For promotion: Academic/Experience: Graduate with 3 years' experience, or

10+2 (2nd division) with 5 years' experience, or Matric (1st Division) with 7 years'
experience. Knowledge of computers is necessary. Preference for candidates with
computer skills up to O level.

The Plaintiff fulfils all the requisite qualifications for the promotion for the post
of Share Clerk. However, his application was illegally rejected by respondent No.
2, allegedly to unduly favour respondent no. 1 due to political interference from
the local MLA.

A total of seven applicants applied for the aforementioned post. Out of these
seven candidates, three were graduates, and four met the qualifications by either
being 12th pass or 10th pass with the required years of experience. The Plaintiff
was one of these applicants. Petitioner was senior most peon fulfilling the criteria
for promotion. No peon who was senior to him was eligible for promotion for the
post of share clerk.

After considering the applications of all applicants, the Respondent No. 2 issued
an office order dated 18.07.2013, by which Respondent No. 1 was re-designated
from the post of Cane clerk (Seasonal) to the post of Share Clerk with immediate
effect.
 C

According to Rule 6 of the Service Rule of the Employees of the Co-operative

Sugar Mills in the State of Haryana, the method of recruitment in Respondent no.
2 mill includes three types: by promotion, on deputation, or by direct recruitment.
However, Respondent No. 2 filled the post of Share clerk by re-designating
Respondent No. 1 as Share Clerk from the post of Cane clerk (Seasonal). This
action was beyond the scope of the recruitment methods provided under the
Service Rule of the Co-operative Sugar Mills in the State of Haryana.

As re-designation cannot be treated as either promotion or direct recruitment,

hence, petitioner aggrieved by the selection of respondent no. 1 filed a civil suit
(No. 147/1 of 2013) against both the respondents, seeking a declaration that the
impugned order dated 18.07.2013, which re-designated respondent no. 1 from
Cane Clerk to Share Clerk, is illegal, null and void. Additionally, the petitioner
sought further relief, claiming entitlement to a promotion from the post of Peon
to Share Clerk with effect from 18.07.2013. Ld. Trial court dismissed the Civil
suit no. 147/1 of 2013 filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Civil
appeal no. 91 of 2015 against the Judgement and decree dated:14.05.2015 passed
by the trial court in Civil suit no. 147/1 of 2013. The learned 1st appellate court
allowed Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. The order dated
18.07.2013, concerning the re-designation of respondent no. 1 to the post of Share
Clerk, was declared null and void. Additionally, a decree of mandatory injunction
was passed against respondent no. 2, directing that the petitioner be promoted to
the post of Share Clerk from Peon with effect from 18.07.2013. Aggrieved by the
Judgement and decree of the Ld. 1st appellate court respondent no. 1 filed RSA
no. 4303/2016 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the record, the Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2, and
overruled the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court. The
Hon’ble High Court, without considering the observations of the 1st appellate
 D

court, upheld that the post of Share Clerk is not promotional in nature and was to
be filled only by direct recruitment. Moreover, Hon'ble High Court failed to
appreciate that Respondent No. 1 was working at the same scale and post, albeit
in a different department. Re-designation is not synonymous with promotion or
direct recruitment as held by this hon’ble court in the cases of Union of India vs.
M. L. Capoor (1973) 1 SCC 386 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R.
Santhakumari Velusamy, (2011) 9 SCC 510.

In the present case, respondent no. 1 was merely re-designated to the post of Share
Clerk. Such a change cannot be considered a promotion, as it does not involve an
increase in responsibilities, emoluments, or status. Also, re-designation cannot be
any stretch of imagination be treated as direct recruitment. The Ld. 1 st appellate
court rightly held that there cannot be any recruitment in respondent no. 2 mill by
way of re-designation as it beyond the scope of relevant rules of recruitment in
respondent no. 2 mill.

The Hon'ble High Court failed to recognize that the post of Share Clerk was
promotional in nature, which was the sole reason the petitioner's candidature was
considered by the Promotion/select Committee. If the post had been filled through
direct recruitment, the petitioner would not have been eligible as he was not a
graduate at the time and only held a 12th-grade passing certificate. Seven
candidates applied for the post, four of whom were not graduates but held 10th
or 12th-grade certificates. The Promotion/select Committee's consideration of
their applications indicated that the post was intended to be filled only by
promotion rather than direct recruitment.

The Promotion/select Committee considered the past performance of all

applicants in respondent no. 2's mill, which is relevant only for the promotions
and not for direct recruitment. This crucial aspect was overlooked by the Hon'ble
High Court, leading to an incorrect conclusion that the post was to be filled by
 E

direct recruitment. The court also failed to consider legal precedents

distinguishing between re-designation and promotion, such as Union of India vs.
M. L. Capoor (1973) 1 SCC 386 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R.
Santhakumari Velusamy, (2011) 9 SCC 510 cases.

There was only one sanctioned post of Share Clerk in respondent no. 2's mill,
which respondent no. 2 admitted in the written statement in Civil Suit No.
120/1/23.11.2005 (titled Dhare Singh v. The Meham Coop.) that it is
promotional in nature. The Departmental Promotion/select Committee's role in
evaluating candidates based on experience and departmental service further
supports the promotional nature of the post. The Promotion/select Committee
reviewed applications based on service records, underscoring the post's
promotional intent, a process completely overlooked by the Hon'ble High Court.

Hence, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way
instant Special Leave Petition.
 F

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S.N. DATE PARTICULARS

1. 07.06.2013 Respondent no. 1 notified one vacancy for the post of

Share clerk. Total seven applicants applied for the post.
The qualifications required for the post were as follows:

For direct recruitment: Academic: Graduate,

preferably B.Com., Knowledge of computers is
necessary. Preference for candidates with computer
skills up to O level.

For promotion: Academic/Experience: Graduate with 3

years' experience, or 10+2 (2nd division) with 5 years'
experience, or Matric (1st Division) with 7 years'
experience. Knowledge of computers is necessary.
Preference for candidates with computer skills up to O
level.

The Plaintiff fulfils all the requisite qualifications for the

promotion for the post of Share Clerk.

2. 18.07.2013 An order was published by respondent no. 2 that

respondent no.1 was re-designating from the post of

Cane clerk to the Share Clerk. It is pertinent to mention

here that pay and rank of both cane clerk and share clerk

are same.

3. 12.08.2013 A civil suit (No. 147/1 of 2013) was filed by the

petitioner against the respondents, seeking a declaration

that the impugned order dated 18.07.2013, which re-

designated respondent no. 1 from Cane Clerk to Share

 G

Clerk, is illegal, null, and void. Additionally, the

petitioner sought further relief, claiming entitlement to a

promotion from the post of Peon to Share Clerk with

effect from 18.07.2013.

4. 14.05.2015 Ld. Trail court dismissed the Civil suit no. 147/1 of

2013 filed by the petitioner. A true copy of the

judgement and decree of the ld. trial court is annexed

herewith as Annexure-P2.

5. 26.05.2015 Petitioner filed a Civil appeal no. 91 of 2015 against the

Judgement and decree dated:14.05.2015 passed by the

trial court in Civil suit no. 147/1 of 2013.

6. 19.07.2016 The learned 1st appellate court allowed Civil Appeal

No. 91 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. The order dated

18.07.2013, concerning the re-designation of respondent

no. 1 to the post of Share Clerk, was declared null and

void. Additionally, a decree of mandatory injunction

was passed against respondent no. 2, directing that the

petitioner be promoted to the post of Share Clerk from

Peon with effect from 18.07.2013. A true copy of the

judgement and decree of the ld. trial court is annexed

herewith as Annexure-P3.

7. 16.08.2016 Aggrieved by the Judgement and decree of the Ld. 1 st

appellate court respondent no. 1 filed second appeal no.

4303/2016 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High

Court. A true copy of the RSA no. 4303/2016 is annexed

 H

herewith as Annexure-P4.

8. 08.05.2024 Without considering the entire facts and circumstances

of the record, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High

Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2,

overruling the judgment and decree passed by the

learned 1st appellate court. The Hon’ble High Court,

without considering the observations of the 1st appellate

court, upheld that the post of Share Clerk is not

promotional in nature and was to be filled only by direct

recruitment. The Hon’ble High Court failed to

appreciate that respondent no. 2, in the written statement

in Civil Suit No. 120/1/23.11.2005 (titled Dhare Singh

v. The Meham Coop.), had categorically admitted that

the impugned post is promotional in nature. The

Hon’ble High Court also overlooked the fact that if the

post were to be filled by direct recruitment, then the

petitioner and three other applicants (out of a total of

seven) would not have been eligible. They were

considered because their qualifications met the

requirements under the promotional category, and the

post of Share Clerk was to be filled by promotion.

9. 19.06.2024 Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner, asking why the petitioner should not be

demoted from the post of Share Clerk to Peon in

compliance with the impugned judgment. A true copy of

 I

the show cause notice with its true translated copy is

annexed herewith as Annexure- P5.

10. 27.06.2024 Hence, the instant SLP seeking to set aside the

Impugned judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by the

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in RSA No.

4303/2016.
 1

!
&

"'$&
"
#'!
!
$(!
&
!$


,*-+,+
0/
   

    
-/ )/+

$%  

" 


 ! 
33)//%16

$)4575
"

 "$
!#
!
"

" !





)5321()165

$%  


" 


 ! 
33)//%16

$)4575
"

 "$
!#
!
"

" !





)5321()165

$%  
" 

!
! 
33)//%16

$)4575
!# !
#







)5321()165

   
-/ )/+

$%  
" 

!

! 
33)//%16

$)4575

 !






)5321()165

"$  "!
$
'%&

$% $!
%!
%&

 !" 4
28-1(
,%7,%1
(82'%6)
*24

6,)
%33)//%160
%4.%5,
-1
! 
%1(
! 

4
%0)5,
22(%
(82'%6)
*24
6,)
%33)//%16
%5&-4
!-1+,
-1
!  
%1(
!   

4
%8-
%16
!,%40%
(82'%6)
*24
4)5321()16
!74)5,
70%4


$% $!
%!
%&


"1).

?
:./9
)53354
58*+8
,5;8
8+-;2'8
9+)54*
'66+'29

*+:'/29
5,
=./).
'8+
-/<+4
/4
:.+
.+'*/4-
5,

./9
58*+8
'8+
(+/4-

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 2

,'):9

'9(/8
$/4-.
.'9
,/2+*
'4
'66+'2
'-'/49:
!3
"'81'9.

'9
=+22
'9
$;8+9.
;3'8
</*+
#$
5
 
5,

'4*
#$

5

5,

8+96+):/<+2?
=.5
.'<+
;2:/3':+2?
9;))++*+*

(+,58+
:.+
5;8:9
(+25=

/4
5;9:/4-
:.+
'66+22'4:
,853
:.+
659:

5,
$.'8+
2+81

!3
"'81'9.
.'9
,/2+*
'4
'66+'2
</*+
#$
5

5,


'-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:
5,
:.+
5=+8
66+22':+
5;8:
*':+*

  
7;'
:.+
'66+'2
,/2+*
(?
$;8+9.
;3'8

(+,58+
:.+

5=+8
66+22':+
5;8:
(?
=./).
',:+8
:.+
5;9:/4-
5,
'9(/8

$/4-.
,853
:.+
659:
5,
9.'8+
2+81
:.+
9'3+
.'9
(++4
-/<+4
/4

,'<5;8
5,
$;8+9.
;3'8
/-458/4-
:.+
)2'/3
5,
!3
"'81'9.
=.5

='9
'295
)2'/3/4-
:.+
9'3+
659:
#$
5

5,


.'9

(++4
,/2+*
(?
!3
"'81'9.
'-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
5,

:.+
5=+8
66+22':+
5;8:
*':+*

  
(?
=./).
:.+

'66+'2
'-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
5,
:.+

%8/'2
5;8:

*':+*

  
=./).
='9
35*/,/+*
</*+
58*+8
*':+*

  

.'9
(++4
*/93/99+*
++6/4-
/4
</+=
:.+
8+2/+,

)2'/3+*
/:
/9
*/,,/);2:
:5
*+)/*+
:.+
68+9+4:
'66+'2
9+6'8':+2?

'9
:.+
,'):9
/4
'22
:.+
'66+'29
'8+
9'3+
'4*
8+2':/4-
:5
:.+

9'3+
9+2+):/54
7;'
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81

+8:'/4
,'):9
4++*
(+
45:/)+*
,58
:.+
)588+):

'668+)/':/54
5,
:.+
/99;+
/4
.'4*

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 3

$%  

" 
$%  


" 
$%  
" 
$%  
"  

%.+
68+9+4:
'66+'29
8+2':+9
:5
:.+
'665/4:3+4:
:5

:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
=./).
='9
2?/4-
<')'4:
=/:.
:.+

8+9654*+4:/22
9
6+8
:.+
8;2+9
-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+
:.+

659:
/4
7;+9:/54
)'4
(+
,/22+*
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
(?

68535:/54
58

54
*+6;:':/54
++6/4-
/4
</+=
5,
:.+
,'):
:.':

:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
='9
:+).4/)'2
/4
4':;8+
'4*
='9
'295

+4</9'-+*
/4
:.+
)'*8+
5, )2+819
:.+
8+9654*+4:
/22
6;(2/9.+*

45:/)+
*':+*
 
,58
,/22/4-
;6

:.+
659:
5,
9.'8+
)2+81

,853

:.+
+3625?++9

'28+'*?
=581/4-
/4
:.+
/22
9;(0+):
:5

:.+

,;2,/223+4:
5,

:.+
7;'2/,/)':/549
+4</9'-+*
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:
,58
:.+
'665/4:3+4:
:5
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81

++6/4-
/4
</+=
:.+

7;'2/,/)':/549
=./).
=+8+
8+7;/8+*
,58
:.+

'665/4:3+4:
5,
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:


+3625?++9
/4)2;*/4-
:.+
'9(/8
$/4-.

'66+22'4:
/4
#$
5,

'4*
#$
5
 
5,

'4*

8+9654*+4:
/4
#$
5

5,

'4*
#$
!

5,


!3
"'81'9.
66+22'4:
/4
#$
5

5,

#$

!

5,

'4*
8+9654*+4:
/4
#$
5
 
5,


'4*
:.+
8+9654*+4:62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8
8+9654*+4:
/4

8+-;2'8
9+)54*
'66+'29
5

5,

'4*
#$
5

5,


(+/4-
*+)/*+*
(?
:./9
58*+8
=.5
=+8+
'28+'*?
=581/4-
/4

:.+
/22
'662/+*
,58
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
,:+8
8+)+/</4-

'662/)':/549

,58
:.+
659:

5,
$.'8+
2+81
'
9+2+):/54
)533/::++

='9
)549:/:;:+*
'4*

)'9+
5,
'22
:.+
'662/)'4:9
='9
)549/*+8+*

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 4

,:+8
*;+
*+2/(+8':/549
'4*
(?
-/</4-
*;+
8+'9549

'9(/8
$/4-.
=.5
='9
=581/4-
'9
'
'4+
2+81
='9
,5;4*

9;/:'(2+
:5
(+
'665/4:+*
'9
'
$.'8+
2+81
++6/4-
/4
</+=
:.+

8+)533+4*':/549
5,
:.+
9+2+):/54
533/::++
'9(/8
$/4-.

</*+
58*+8
*':+*
:.
5,
;2?

='9
8+*+9/-4':+*
'9
$.'8+

2+81
'9
:.+
659:
5,
'4+
2+81

:.+
659:
54
=./).
'9(/8

$/4-.
='9
=581/4-

='9
.'</4-
+7;/<'2+4:
*+9/-4':/54
'4*

+7;'2
9'2'8?
.+4)+
8':.+8
:.'4
/99;/4-
'4
'665/4:3+4:
58*+8

542?
'
8+
*+9/-4':/54
58*+8
='9
/99;+*
(?
:.+
8+9654*+4:/22

/4
6;89;'4)+
:5
:.+
9+2+):/54
5,
:.+
'66+22'4:
'9(/8
$/4-.

++2/4-
'--8/+<+*
'-'/49:
:.+
9+2+):/54
5,
'9(/8

$/4-.
'9
$.'8+
2+81
'66+22'4:
!3
"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9

8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8
,/2+*
9+6'8':+
9;/:9
%.+?

45:
542?
).'22+4-+*
:.+
'665/4:3+4:
5,

'9(/8
$/4-.
(;:
'295

)2'/3+*
:.':
:.+?
.'*
'
(+::+8
)2'/3

:.'4
'9(/8
$/4-.
95
'9

:5
(+
'665/4:+*
'9
'
$.'8+
2+81

++6/4-
/4
</+=
:.+
,'):9
'4*
+</*+4)+
=./).
)'3+

54
8+)58*
:.+
9;/:
,/2+*
(?
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8

='9
*/93/99+*
(?
:.+
%8/'2
5;8:
</*+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++

*':+*
  
(;:
:.+
9;/:
,/2+*
(?
:.+
'66+22'4:!3

"'81'9.
='9
6'8:2?
'225=+*
(?
:.+
:8/'2
5;8:
</*+
0;*-3+4:

'4*
*+)8++
*':+*
  
(?
=./).
:.+
8+*+9/-4':/54
5,

'9(/8
$/4-.
,853
:.+
659:
5,
'4+
2+81
:5
$.'8+
2+81
</*+

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 5

:5
!3
"'81'9.
95
'9
:5
(+

)549/*+8+*
,58
:.+

659:
5,
$.'8+

2+81

++2/4-
'--8/+<+*
'-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:
5,
:.+
:8/'2

5;8:
*':+*  
!3
"'81'9.
,/2+*
'4
'66+'2
(+,58+

:.+
25=+8
66+22':+
5;8:
=./).
'66+'2
='9
'295

*/93/99+*
(?

:.+
5=+8
66+22':+
5;8:

</*+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
*':+*

 
'-'/49:
=./).
!3
"'81'9.
.'9
,/2+* 




).'22+4-/4-
:.+
0;*-3+4:

'4*
*+)8++
5,
:.+

5;8:9
(+25=

$/3/2'82?
$;8+9.
;3'8
'295
,/2+*
'4
'66+'2
'-'/49:

:.+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
5,
:.+
:8/'2
5;8:
*':+*    

(?
=./).
./9
9;/:
='9
*/93/99+*
=./).
'66+'2
='9
'225=+*
(?

:.+
5=+8
66+22':+
5;8:
</*+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
*':+*

 

=.+8+/4
'
*/8+):/54
='9
/99;+*
:5
'665/4:
$;8+9.

;3'8
54
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
$/4)+
8/-.:
5,
!3
"'81'9.

='9
/4,8/4-+*
/4
:.+
'66+'2

,/2+*
(?
$;8+9.
;3'8

!3"'81'9.
,/2+*
#$
5

5,

).'22+4-/4-
:.+

0;*-3+4:

'4*
*+)8++
*':+*
  
5,
:.+
5=+8
66+22':+

5;8:
:.5;-.
.+
='9
45:
6'8:?

/4
:.+

/</2
$;/:
'4*
'66+'2

,/2+*
(?
:.+
$;8+9.
;3'8
;8:.+8
'9(/8
$/4-.
=.59+

'665/4:3+4:
='9
.+2*
:5
(+
('*
(?
:.+
:8/'2
5;8:
/4
'
9;/:

,/2+*
(?
!3
"'81'9.
'295
,/2+*
'4
'66+'2
'-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:

'4*
*+)8++
5,
:.+
:8/'2
5;8:
*':+*
  
=./).
'66+'2

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 6

0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
*':+*
  
'-'/49:
=./).

0;*-3+4:
'9(/8
$/4-.
.'9
68+,+88+*
#$
5
 
5,


-'/49:
:.+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++
*':+*
  
6'99+*
(?

:.+
5=+8
'66+22':+
5;8:
/4
'4
'66+'2
,/2+*

(?
$;8+9.
;3'8

:.+
'9(/8
$/4-.
.'9
68+,+88+*
#$
5

5,

=./).
/9

(+/4-
*+)/*+*
(?
:.+
68+9+4:
58*+8


.'<+
.+'8*
:.+
2+'84+*
)5;49+29
,58
:.+
6'8:/+9
'4*

.'<+
-54+
:.85;-.
:.+
8+)58*
=/:.
:.+/8
'(2+
'99/9:'4)+

%.+
542?
7;+9:/54
=./).
'8/9+9
,58
'*0;*/)':/54

(+,58+
:./9
5;8:
/4
:.+
68+9+4:
'66+'29
/9
=.+:.+8
:.+

'665/4:3+4:8+*+9/-4':/54
5,
'9(/8
$/4-.
'9
'
$.'8+
2+81

/9
(?
='?
5,
68535:/54
58
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
'4*

=.+:.+8
:.+
9'3+
/9
/4
'))58*'4)+
=/:.
:.+
8;2+9
-5<+84/4-
/4

:.+
9+8</)+9
8;2+9
58
45:

:
3'?
(+
45:/)+*
:.':
'9
:.+
659:

5,
9.'8+
2+81
/9

+4</9'-+*
;4*+8
:.+

9+8</)+
8;2+9
'662/)'(2+
:5
:.+
)556+8':/<+

9;-'8
3/229
5,
'8?'4'
:/:2+*
:.+
C 
 



 


 
 






D
'9
'3+4*+*
/4
:.+
?+'8

:.+
8+9654*+4:3/22

(+/4-
:.+
)536+:+4:
';:.58/:?
='9
:5

*+)/*+
.5=

:5
,/22
:.+

659:
/4
7;+9:/54
(?
62')/4-
8+2/'4)+
;654
:.+
8;2+9
=./).

-5<+849
:.+
,/22/4-
5,
:.+
659:
5,
2+81
9
6+8
:.+
8;2+9

-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+
:.+
659:
5,
2+81
)'4
(+
,/2+*
(?
='?
5,

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 7

/,,+8+4:
7;'2/,/)':/549
.'<+
(++4
3+4:/54+*
,58
68535:/54
'4*

*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
/4
:.+
9'/*
8;2+9
9
45
7;5:'
='9

68+9)8/(+*
,58
68535:/54
58
:.+
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
'
*+)/9/54

='9
:'1+4
(?
:.+
8+9654*+4:3/22
:.':
'22
:.+
+3625?++9
=.5

=+8+
=581/4-
/4
:.+
/22
'4*
,;2,/22+*
:.+
7;'2/,/)':/54
,58
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:
,58
:.+
659:

5,
)2+81
=/22
(+
-/<+4
'
).'4)+
:5

)536+:+
,58
:.+
659:
5,
9.'8+
2+81

+4)+
:.+
'662/)':/549

=+8+
/4</:+*
,853
'22
:.+
+2/-/(2+9
=.5
/4:+4*+*
:5
6'8:/)/6':+

,58
9+2+):/54
:5

:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
:
/9
'295
'
)54)+*+*

,'):
:.':

'662/)':/549

/4)2;*/4-
:.+
'662/)':/54
,/2+*
(?
:.+

'66+22'4:
!3
"'81'9.
'66+22'4:
'9(/8
$/4-.
'4*
:.+

8+9654*+4:62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8
=+8+
8+)+/<+*


9+2+):/54
)533/::++
='9
'295
,583+*
:5
+<'2;':+

:.+
)8+*+4:/'29
'9
=+22
'9
:.+
)'6'(/2/:?
5,
:.+
)'4*/*':+9
=.5

.'*
'662/+*
,58
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
4
:.+
3++:/4-
5,
:.+

$+2+):/54
533/::++
:.+
)8+*+4:/'29
5,
'22
:.+
'662/)'4:9

/4)2;*/4-
:.+
'66+22'4:
!3
"'81'9.
'66+22'4:
'9(/8
$/4-.
'9

=+22
'9
8+9654*+4:62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8
=+8+
)549/*+8+*

++6/4-
/4
</+=
:.+
<'8/5;9
8+'9549
-/<+4
'66+22'4:
'9(/8

$/4-.
='9
,5;4*
:5
(+
358+
3+8/:58/5;9
'354-9:
'22
:.+


'662/)'4:9
%.+
8+'954
-/<+4
(?
:.+
9+2+):/54
)533/::++
='9

:.':
:.5;-.
'9(/8
$/4-.
='9
=581/4-
'9
'4+
2+81
(;:
.+

='9
'28+'*?
6+8,583/4-
:.+
*;:?
5,
$.'8+
2+81
9+'954'2
'295

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 8

"'81'9.
/:
='9
3+4:/54+*
:.':
:.5;-.
.+
='9
9+4/58
:5
'9(/8

$/4-.
(;:
'9
.+
*/*
45:
.'<+
'4?
+>6+8/+4)+
5,
=581/4-
54
:.+

659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
.+4)+
.+
='9
45:
,5;4*
3+8/:58/5;9

+45;-.
:5
(+
'665/4:+*
54
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
&/:.
8+-'8*
:5

:.+
8+9654*+4:62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8

/:
='9
3+4:/54+*
:.':

.+
='9
=581/4-
'9
"+54
'4*
./9
:8')1
8+)58*
='9
45:
-55*

1++6/4-
/4
</+=
<'8/5;9
6;4/9.3+4:
=./).
='9
-/<+4
:5
./3

%.+
*+)/9/54
=./).
.'9
(++4
:'1+4
(?
:.+
9+2+):/54
)533/::++

/9
'9
;4*+8

D&1.
.1*6
889.;*=2?.
%>0*;
*55
.1*6

2<=;2,=
$81=*4
8;
/255270
,5.;4

=1.
98<=
8/
<1*;.
=
<1*;.
=12<
=26.
,5.;4
2<
87.

98<=
?*,*7=
8/
&1.
/8558@270
2<
=1.
:>*52/2,*=287
/8;
-2;.,=

;*->*=.
78@5.-0.
7.,.<<*;B
*99827=6.7=
,*-.62,

9;./.;*+5B
 86
8/
869>=.;
869>=.;
8>;<.
2<
>9=8

"
5.?.5
@255
+.
9;./.;;.-
*7-
/8;
9;868=287
*<

,*-.62,
A9
;*->*=.
@2=1

B;<
A9
";


 7-

2?2<287
@2=1

B;<
A9
";
*=;2,
<=
2?2<287
@2=1


B.*;<
.A9
<
*7.
*6-*;
*/=;2
.7=;.
18@42-*;

#.87
8;
<2625*;
.:>*5
98<=<
78@5.-0.
8/
869>=.;
2<

7.,.<<*;B
869>=.;
8>;<.
>9=8
 
5.?.5
9952,*=287<

@255
@.;.
+.
9;./.;;.-
27?2=.-
/8;
/255270
=1.
98<=
8/
<1*;.

,5.;4
27=.;7*55B
'2-.
78 % <=*+52<16.7= 
5.==.;

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 9

$%  

" 
$%  


" 
$%  
" 
$%  
"  

-*=.-
  
8/
=12<
8//2,.
*7-
=1.

*9952,*=287<

@.;.
;.,.2?.-
55
@.;.
,*55.-
/8;
27=.;?2.@
  

%1
%>41+2;
/8;
%2701
08-8@7
4..9.;
*7-
%1
!*;27-.;

#*5
%2701
*7.
*6-*;
-2-
78=
,86.
9;.<.7=
*=
=1.
=26.

8/
27=.;?2.@
*7-
%6=
*65.<1
>6*;2
*99827=.-
87
=1.

98<=
8/
884
87
 
*7-
<1.
2<
@8;4270
87
=1.

98<=
8/
*/=;2
/;86
  
%6=
*65.<1
>6*;2
2<

78=
1*?270

2?2<287
27
6*=;2,
78;
<1.
2<
1*?270
<.,87-

-2?2<287
27

78;
<1.
2<
 
9*<<
*7-
=1.;./8;.
%6=

>6*;2
*65.<1
2<
78=
/>5/255270
=1.
:>*52/2,*=287
$.<=
8/

%1
.6958B..<
=1;..
#*;4*<1
%1
%>;*3
*5
*7-
%1

*<+2;
%2701
@.;.
@8;4270
*<
*7.
,5.;4
%.*<87*5
*7-

*55
=1.
=1;..
.6958B..<
3827.-
=1.
->=B
27
=1.



%1
"6
#*;4*<1
*7.
5.;$
1*<
78

.A9.;2.7,.
8/
<1*;.
<.,=287
%1
%>;*B
*5
*7.
5.;4

><.-
=8
+.
,*55.-
7
=1.
<1*;.
<.,=287
*=
=1.
=26.
8/

;.:>2;.6.7=
*7-
78
<>,1
5.==.;
@*<
2<<>.-
+B
=1.
<

.7.;*5
6*7*0.C*
=1*=
%>;*3
*5
*7.
5.;4
1*-

.A9.;2.7,.
%>;.<1
8/
>6*;

<.;?2,.
<1*;.

,5.;4
%1
3827.-
9.87
%
->=B
+>=
78=
87
12<
/8>7-

;.,8;-
<*=2</*,=8;B
*<
=1.
.6958B..
1*-
+..7
<><9.7-.-

=@2,.
*7-
1.
2<
3>728;
=8
8=1.;
.6958B..<
*7-
12<
;*74


*5<8
>728;
8=1.;
.6958B..
*7-
1.
2<
*5<8
3>728;
/;86
=1.

-*=.
8/
3827270
%1
*<+2;
%2701
*7.
5.;4
<.*<87*5

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 10

$%  

" 
$%  


" 
$%  
" 
$%  
"  

9.;6*7.7=
@*<
*99827=.-
87

87
=1.

9.;6*7.7=
98<=
8/
*7.
,5.;4
<.*<87*5
%1
*<+2;
%2701

2<
 
#*<<
*7-
1*?270
=1.
478@5.-0.
8/
869>=.;
&1.

7*6.
8/
*<+2;
%2701
2<
*=
%;
!8 
27
=1.
<.728;2=B
52<=
8/

*7.
5.;4<
%.?.7
<.*<87*5
9.;6*7.7=
.6958B..<
*;.

<.728;
=8
*<+2;
%2701
8>=
8/
@12,1
875B
87.
.6958B..

7*6.5B
%1
"6
#*;4*<1
<87
8/
&.4
$*6
*9952.-
/8;
=1.

98<=
8/
<1*;.
,5.;4
+>=
=12<
.6958B..
1*<
78
.A9.;2.7,.
8/

<1*;.
,5.;4
.6958B..<
-2-
*7-
78=
;.<=
8/
-.98<2=

=1.

*9952,*=287
/8;6
/8;
=1.
98<=
8/
<1*;.
,5.;4
>=
%1
*<+2;

%2701
*7.
,5.;4
,5.;4
2<
@8;4270
*<
<1*;.
*<
9.;
8//2,.

78 % <=*+52<16.7=  
8;-.;
-*=.-
 
<

9.;
=1.
;.98;=
8/
<1*;.
<.,=287
27,1*;0.
*7-
12./
>-2=

"//2,.;
=1.
<.;?2,.
;.,8;-
8/
=12<
<*=2</*,=8;B
*7.
<*6.

.6958B..
&1.
9*B
2<
/8>7-
<,*5.
8/
5.;4
*7-
%1*;.
,5.;4

2<
<*6.

(125.
4..9270
*+8?.
,8662==..
6.7=287.-
27
'2.@

/*,=<
;.,866.7-.-
=8
;.
-.<207*=.
%1
*<+2;
%2701
<87

8/
*0.
$*6
%.*<87*5 9.;6*7.7=
9.;6*7.7=
98<=
8/

%1*;.
5.;4
*7.
5.;4
=1.
87
=1.
9.;6*7.7=
98<=
8/

%1*;.
5.;4

%- 
12./
>-2=
"//2,.;

%-
 12./
1.62<=

%- 
12./
7027..;

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 11

$%  

" 
$%  


" 
$%  
" 
$%  
"  

%-
*7.
*7*0.;

%- 
"//2,.
%>9.;27=.7-.7= 

('8+
6+8;9'2
5,
:.+
'(5<+

8+952;':/54
=5;2*
9.5=

:.':
(?
-/</4-
*;+
8+'9549
5;:
5,
:.+

'662/)'4:9

'9(/8

$/4-.
='9
,5;4*
3+8/:58/5;9
+45;-.
:5
(+
'665/4:+*
54
:.+

659:
/4
7;+9:/54
:
/9
45:
:.':
:.+
)2'/3
5,
:.+
5:.+89
/+

!3

"'81'9.
58
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,
$;8+9.
;3'8
='9
45:

)549/*+8+*
%.+/8
)2'/3
='9
'295
)549/*+8+*
(;:
:.+
9+2+):/54

)533/::++
=./).
/4)2;*+*
:.+
+>6+8:9
5,
:.+
/22
=.5
14+=

:.+
=581/4-
5,
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
,5;4*
'66+22'4:
'9(/8

$/4-.
358+
3+8/:58/5;9
+96+)/'22?
=.+4
:.+8+
='9
45:./4-

'-'/49:
./3
/4
:.+
9+8</)+
8+)58*
'4*
.+
.'*
'295
(++4
=581/4-

54
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
$+'954'2
+'82/+8
'295

5=
:.+
7;+9:/54
=./).
'8/9+9
/9
=.+:.+8
:.+
659:

5,
$.'8+
2+81
.'9
(++4
,/22+*
/4
'))58*'4)+
=/:.
:.+
8;2+9

-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+
58
45:

%.+
'8-;3+4:
=./).
.'9
(++4
8'/9+*
(?
:.+

'66+22'4:
!3
"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9
:.+
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,

$;8+9.
;3'8
/9
:.':
:.+
9'/*
659:

.'9
:5
(+
,/22+*
(?
='?
5,

68535:/54
542?
.+4)+

:.+
8+*+9/-4':/54
5,
'9(/8
$/4-.
,853

:.+
659:
5,
'4+
2+81
$+'954'2
:5
:.':
5,
$.'8+
2+81
='9

45:
6+83/99/(2+
%.+
9'/*
)54:+4:/54
/4
:.+
,'):9
'4*

)/8);39:'4)+9
5,
:.+
)'9+
/9
45:
)588+):

=./).
,'):
.'9
'295

(++4

45:
'668+)/':+*
(?
:.+
5;8:
(+25=

=./2+
6'99/4-
:.+

0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++9
/4
,'<5;8
5,
'66+22'4:9!3
"'81'9.
'9

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 12

:.+
,'):
:.':
54)+

:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
/9
+4</9'-+*
;4*+8

:.+
8;2+9
'4*
:.+
9'3+
)'4
(+
,/22+*
;6
(?
68535:/54
'9
=+22
'9

*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
)5;62+*
=/:.
:.+
,'):
:.':
:.+8+
='9
45

7;5:'
685</*+*
,58
68535:/54*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
:5
:.+
659:
5,

9.'8+
)2+81

:.+
'665/4:/4-
';:.58/:?

(+/4-
'
)536+:+4:

';:.58/:?
.'9
'
*/9)8+:/54
:5
*+)/*+
'9
:5

.5=
:.+
9'/*
659:
/9

:5
(+
,/22+*
;6
%.+
'665/4:/4-
';:.58/:?
:551
'
)549)/5;9

*+)/9/54
:.':
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81

=/22
(+
,/22+*
;6
(?

)/8);2':/4-
:.+
659:
'354-9:
'22
:.+
+2/-/(2+
+3625?++9

=.5

,;2,/229
:.+
7;'2/,/)':/54
8+7;/8+*
,58

:.+
659:
5,
2+81
(?
='?
5,

*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
!4)+
:.+
)536+:+4:
';:.58/:?
/4
:.+

'(9+4)+
5,
'4?
8;2+9
/4
:.+
8;2+9

-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+

685</*/4-
'4?
7;5:'
,58
68535:/54*/8+):
8+);8/:3+4:
*+)/*+*

'
6'8:/);2'8
3+:.5*
95
'9
:5
)/8);2':+
:.+
659:
'354-9:
'22
:.+

+2/-/(2+
+3625?++9
=.5
,;2,/22
:.+
7;'2/,/)':/54
,58
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:
,58
:.+
659:
5,
2+81
:.+
9'/*
*+)/9/54
:5
,/22
;6
:.+

659:
/9
/4)54954'4)+
=/:.
8;2+9
'9
=+22
'9
9+::2+*
68/4)/62+
5,

2'=
:
'
9+::2+*
68/4)/62+
2'=
:.':
/4
:.+
'(9+4)+
5,
'4?
8;2+9

-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+
'9
:5
.5=
:.+
659:
/9
:5
(+
,/22+*
;6
:.+

'665/4:/4-
';:.58/:?
.'9
'
0;8/9*/):/54
:5
*+)/*+
:.+
3+:.5*
5,

8+)8;/:3+4:
:5
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
=./).
.'9
(++4
*54+
/4
:.+

68+9+4:
)'9+
'4*
/:

='9
*+)/*+*
(?
:.+
)536+:+4:
';:.58/:?
:5

)/8);2':+
:.+
659:
'354-9:
'22
:.+
+2/-/(2+
=.5
'8+
=581/4-
/4

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 13

659:
5,
2+81
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
+4)+
:.+
9'/*

'):/54
5,
:.+
8+9654*+4:
3/22
)'445:
(+
:8+':+*
'9
'8(/:8'8?
58

/22+-'2
58
)';9/4-
68+0;*/)+
:5
'4?54+

<+4
5:.+8=/9+
/:
/9
'
9+::2+*
68/4)/62+
5,
2'=
:.':

659:
)'4
(+
,/22+*
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
(?
)/8);2':/4-

=/:./4
:.+
+3625?++9
5,
'
6'8:/);2'8
58-'4/@':/54
%.+

'66+22'4:!3
"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,$;8+9.

;3'8
)536+:+*
,58
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
'4*
:.+4
,'/2+*

(;:

(+,58+
(+/4-
*+)2'8+*
,'/2+*
454+
5,
:.+
+3625?++
)536+:/4-

,58
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54

8'/9+*
'4?
5(0+):/54
=/:.
8+-'8*
:5
:.+

3+:.5*
5,
:.+
,/22/4-
;6
5,
:.+
659:
(?
:.+
3/22
:
/9
=.+4
:.+?

,'/2+*
:5
')./+<+
:.+
6;8659+
5,
9+2+):/54
:.+
9;/:9
=+8+
,/2+*

(?
:.+
'66+22'4:!3
"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,

$;8+9.
;3'8
).'22+4-/4-
:.+
'665/4:3+4:
5,
'9(/8
$/4-.
(?

,/2/4-
)/</2
9;/:
!4)+
'
)'4*/*':+B9
)2'/3
.'9
(++4
)549/*+8+*

'4*
,5;4*
45:
9;/:'(2+
:.+
)5;8:9
(+25=
9.5;2*
.'<+

)549/*+8+*
:.+
9'/*
,'):
(+,58+
-8'4:/4-
:.+
8+2/+,
/4
:.+
9;/:

,/2+*
(?
'66+22'4:
!3
"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,

$;8+9.
;3'8
%.+
5;8:9
(+25=
,'/2+*
:5
)549/*+8
:.+
9'/*

,'):9
':
'22

%.+
5:.+8
'8-;3+4:
=./).
.'9
(++4
8'/9+*
(?

2+'84+*
)5;49+2
,58
8+9654*+4:$;8+9.
;3'8

/9
:.':
'9(/8

$/4-.
='9
45:
'665/4:+*
54
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
(?
='?
5,

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 14

'665/4:3+4:
)'445:
(+
:8+':+*
(?
='?
5,
'
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:

&./2+

8'/9/4-
:.+
9'/*
'8-;3+4:
:.+
'66+22'4:!3

"'81'9.
'9
=+22
'9
8+9654*+4:
62'/4:/,,$;8+9.
;3'8
,'/2+*
:5

45:/)+
:.+
,'):
:.':
'9(/8
$/4-.
='9
'28+'*?
=581/4-
'9
'4+

2+81
/4
:.+
8+9654*+4:
/22
:
.'9
'28+'*?
)53+
54
8+)58*
(?

='?
5,
+</*+4)+
:.':
:.+
659:
5,
$.'8+
2+81
'4*
:.':
5,
'
'4+

2+81
54
=./).
'9(/8
$/4-.
='9
=581/4-
=+8+
6'8:
5,

9'3+

)'*8+
.'</4-

+7;'2
9:':;9
'4*

9'3+
6'?
9)'2+
'9
5,
9.'8+

2+81

#':.+8
:.'4
3+4:/54/4-
:.+
=58*
'665/4:3+4:

:.+

/22

/4
/:9
=/9*53
3+4:/54+*
:.':
:.+
'9(/8
$/4-.
=.5

='9

'28+'*?
=581/4-
'9
'
'4+
2+81
/9
(+/4-

8+
*+9/-4':+*
'9
'

$.'8+
2+81
'4*
:.+
9'/*
58*+8
='9
542?
6'99+*
',:+8
:.+

9+2+):/54
5,
'9(/8
$/4-.
/4
6;89;'4)+
:5
8+)533+4*':/54
5,

./9
4'3+
(?
:.+
$+2+):/54
533/::++
/4
6;89;'4)+
:5
:.+

'662/)':/549
=./).
=+8+
9;(3/::+*
(?
'22
:.+
:.8++
'662/)'4:9

)54:+9:/4-

:.+
68+9+4:
8+-;2'8
9+)54*
'66+'29
+8+
:.+
;9+
5,

=58*
A8+*+9/-4':/54B
=/22
45:
:'1+
'='?
:.+
'):;'2
685)+99

=./).
.'9
(++4
;4*+8:'1+4
(?
:.+
8+9654*+4:/22
=./).

)2+'82?
-5+9
:5

9.5=
:.':
:.+
9'3+
='9
,/22+*
(?
='?
5,

$+2+):/54
=./).
=/22
'35;4:
:5
/4:+84'2
9+2+):/54
(?
='?
5,

*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
'4*
.+4)+
)'445:
(+
:8+':+* '9
'2/+4
:5
:.+

8+)8;/:3+4:
8;2+9

:
/9
)2+'8
:.':
'
9+2+):/54
685)+99
.'9
(++4
;4*+8

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 15

)'4*/*':+9
=./).
'35;4:9
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
542?

+96+)/'22?

=.+4
'22
:.+
)'4*/*':+9
.'<+
(++4
+<'2;':+*
54
:.+
('9/9
5,

7;'2/,/)':/54
68+9)8/(+*
,58
:.+
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
,58
:.+
659:

/4
7;+9:/54
%.+
5;8:9
(+25=
.'<+
,'/2+*
:5
'668+)/':+
:.+
,'):

:.':
:.+
'662/)':/549
=+8+
/4</:+*
'4*
:.+
7;'2/,/)':/549

8+7;/8+*
:5
(+
6599+99+*
(?
:.+
)'4*/*':+9
'8+
9'3+
'9

3+4:/54+*
,58
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
.+4)+
,58
'22
/4:+4:9
'4*

6;8659+9
:.+
*+)/9/54
5,
:.+
+3625?+8
='9
:5
,/22
:.+
9'/*
659:

(?
='?
5,
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
!4)+
:.+
/4:+4:/54
5,
:.+

+3625?+8
/9
)2+'8
,853
:.+
45:/)+
/4</:/4-

'662/)':/54
3+8+2?

:.':
:.+
)'4*/*':+9
,853
:.+
56+4
3'81+:
=+8+
45:
'225=+*
:5

)536+:+
,58
:.+
659:
/4
7;+9:/54
'4*
542?
:.+
(+4+,/:
='9

+>:+4*+*
:5
:.+
+3625?++9
=.5
=+8+
'28+'*?
=581/4-

'4*
=.5

,;2,/22
:.+
7;'2/,/)':/54
,58
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
:.+
685)+99
=/22

'35;4:
:5
*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
=/:./4
:.+
58-'4/@':/54

5:./4-
.'9
(++4
(85;-.:
:5
:.+
45:/)+
:.':
'
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:
=/:./4
:.+
/49:/:;:/54
(?
-/</4-
+<+8?54+
'
).'4)+

:5
)536+:+
=.5
'8+
+2/-/(2+
/4
'4?
='?
</52':+
:.+
8;2+9

-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+
+8+2?
:.':
/4
:.+
58*+8
:.+
/22
.'9

3+4:/54+*
:.':
:.+
'66+22'4:
'9(/8
$/4-.
;654
(+/4-

9+2+):+*
/9
(+/4-
8+*+9/-4':+*
'9
9.'8+
2+81
=/22
45:
:'1+

'='?
./9
8/-.:
:5
(+
'665/4:+*
'-'/49:
:.+
9'/*
659:
',:+8

9+2+):/54
%.+
0;*-3+4:
'4*
*+)8++9
5,
:.+
5;8:9
(+25=
'8+

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 16

:5:'22?
(++4
/-458+*
=./2+
8+)58*/4-
:.+
,/4*/4-
:.':
:.+

'665/4:3+4:
5,
'9(/8
$/4-.
(+)53+
/4<'2/*
3+8+2?
(+)';9+

:.+
9'3+
='9
*+9)8/(+*
'9
C#+*+9/-4':/54D
8':.+8
:.'4

'665/4:+*
54
:.+
('9/9
5,
9+2+):/54
685)+99

4
:.+
,'):9
'4*
)/8);39:'4)+9
5,
:.+
68+9+4:
)'9+
/:

/9
)2+'8
:.':
'9(/8
$/4-.
='9
'665/4:+*
(?
='?
5,
*/8+):

8+)8;/:3+4:
(?
='?
5,
/4:+84'2
9+2+):/54
=./).
'35;4:9
:5

*/8+):
8+)8;/:3+4:
=./).
685)+99
/9
<+8?
3;).
/4
'))58*'4)+

=/:.
8;2+9
-5<+84/4-
:.+
9+8</)+

%.+
'66+'2
,/2+*
(?
'9(/8
$/4-.






   
  %.+

0;*-3+4:9
'4*
*+)8++9
5,
:.+
5;8:9
(+25=
*':+*
  

'4*
  
/4
8+96+):
5,
:.+
9;/:
,/2+*
(?
!3
"'81'9.
'9

=+22
'9
:.+
0;*-3+4:9
'4*
*+)8++9
5,
:.+
5;8:9
(+25=

*':+*

  

  
/4
8+96+):
5,
:.+
9;/:
,/2+*
(?
$;8+9.

;3'8
'8+
9+:
'9/*+
(+/4-
6+8<+89+
:5
:.+
,'):9
'4*
+</*+4)+

=./).
.'9
)53+
54
8+)58*
%.+
'66+'2
,/2+*
(?
!3
"'81'9.

(+/4-
#$  
/9
*/93/99+*
/4
</+=
5,
:.+
*+)/9/54
/4

#$  
%.+
#$
5  
=./).
.'9
542?
(++4

,/2+*
7;'
:.+
8+2/+,
-8'4:+*
:5
$;8+9.
;3'8
7;'
./9

'665/4:3+4:
'9
$.'8+
2+81
.'9
(++4
8+4*+8+*
/4,8;):;5;9
'9

:.+

9'/*
0;*-3+4:
'4*

*+)8++
.'9
'28+'*?
(++4
9+:
'9/*+
(?

*+)/*/4-
:.+
'66+'2
,/2+*
(?
:.+
'9(/8
$/4-.

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 17

$%  

" 
$%  


" 
$%  
" 
$%  
"   

"+4*/4-
)/</2
3/9)+22'4+5;9
'662/)':/54
/,
'4?

9:'4*9
*/9659+*
5,


6.5:5)56?
5,
:./9
58*+8
(+
62')+*
54
:.+
,/2+9
5,
)544+):+*
)'9+9

$% $!
%!
%&
'



$2B*
(1.=1.;
<9.*4270 ;.*<87.-

).< !8
(1.=1.;
$.98;=*+5.













).< !8

RI
'RZQORDGHGRQ
 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

[ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a) of S.C. Rules 2013]

[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India]

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024

(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

(Arising against the impugned final order and judgement dated

08.05.2024 in RSA No. 4303 of 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court)

Before the Hon’ble Before this

BETWEEN
High Court Hon’ble Court

1. Suresh Kumar S/o Ram

Chander, Working as Respondent no. 1 Petitioner

Share Clerk under the

Managing Director, The

Meham Coop. Sugar Mills

Ltd., Meham, district

Rohtak, resident of Village

Kharkara, Tehsil Meham,

District-Rohtak-125121

VERSUS

1. Jasbir Singh S/o Jage Ram

working as Cane clerk in The Appellant Respondent No. 1

Meham Coop. Sugar Mills

 19

Ltd., Meham, district Rohtak,

resident of Village Madina,

Tehsil Meham, District-

Rohtak-124111

2. The Meham Cooperative Sugar

Mills Ltd., through its Managing respondent no. 2 respondent no. 2

Director, Meham, District-Rohtak

-124112

TO,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present special leave to appeal is filed against the final order and

judgement dated 08.05.2024 passed by Ld. Single Judge of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court in RSA No. 4303/2016, whereby the Hon’ble High

Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging the

judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by the Ld. 1st appellate Court in Civil

appeal No. 91/2016.

1A. That no letters patent appeal or writ appeal lies against the impugned

judgment and order dated 08.05.2024. The matter was contested before the

Hon’ble High Court by the parties whose name and addresses are given in

the cause title of the instant SLP.

 20

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

The following questions of law arise for consideration and determination in

the instant petition: -

a) Did the High Court err in upholding that Respondent No. 1's

redesignation constitutes direct recruitment, given that Respondent No.

2 categorically admitted in another suit that the post of Share Clerk is

promotional in nature?

b) Did the High Court overlook the observations of the First Appellate

Court regarding the nature of the post advertised by Respondent No.

2?

c) Can the recruitment process be identical for both direct recruitment

and promotion?

d) Is it permissible to assess applicants from direct recruitment and

promotion categories using the same parameters?

e) Can a single vacancy be kept open to be filled by either direct

recruitment or promotion simultaneously?

f) Whether the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in RSA No. 4303/2016 is vitiated by errors of

both law and facts.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

That no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the

petitioner against the impugned judgment and order.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

 21

The annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the

pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the

Courts below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this

petition.

5. GROUNDS

i. The impugned final judgement and order dated 08.05.2024 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court in RSA No. 4303 of 2016 is untenable

and unsustainable in law as well as in facts and, therefore, ought to

be set aside by this Hon’ble Court while exercising jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution.

ii. That the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the post of

Share Clerk was promotional in nature, which was the sole reason

the candidature of the present petitioner was considered by the

Promotion Committee. The Hon’ble High Court, without

considering the relevant facts and circumstances, upheld that the

post was to be filled by direct recruitment rather than by promotion.

The Hon’ble High Court overlooked that if the post were to be filled

through direct recruitment, the petitioner would not have been

eligible for the position as he was not a graduate at that time. The

petitioner only held a 12th-grade passing certificate with requisite

experience as per the advertisement in the respondent no. 2 mill as a

peon. Based on this experience and in accordance with the mandate

of the advertisement dated 07.06.2013, his case was considered for

promotion by the Promotion Committee.

 22

iii. Moreover, seven candidates applied for the post of Share Clerk.

Four of them were not graduates and only held 10th or 12th-grade

certificates. Despite this, their candidatures were considered by the

Promotion Committee. The Honourable High Court blindly

overlooked the fact that if the post were to be filled through direct

recruitment, then these candidates would not have been considered,

and their applications should have been rejected at the very

threshold. The fact that their applications were considered by the

Promotion Committee clearly indicates that the post was

promotional in nature and was not intended to be filled by direct

recruitment.

iv. That the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the

past performance of all applicants in the Respondent No. 2 Mill was

considered by the Promotion Committee. The past performance of a

candidate is relevant only for the purpose of promotion and has no

bearing on direct recruitment. However, the Hon’ble High Court

overlooked this crucial aspect of the selection process and

incorrectly upheld that the post was to be filled by direct

recruitment. This misinterpretation not only undermines the

promotional nature of the post but also disregards the proper

procedural considerations taken by the Promotion Committee. The

Honourable High Court's decision fails to reflect the true intent and

procedural framework established for filling positions within the

respondent no. 2 mill.

 23

v. That the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that Respondent

No. 1 was working at the same scale and post, albeit in a different
department. Re-designation is not synonymous with promotion. In
the landmark case of Union of India vs. M. L. Capoor (1973) 1 SCC
386, this Honourable Court held that "A mere change in designation
without any change in responsibilities or duties cannot be said to be
a promotion." The Court further elucidated that "Promotion implies
that the employee concerned is moved up to a higher post involving
higher responsibilities, higher emoluments, and higher status."
In the present case, respondent no. 1 was merely re-designated to the

post of Share Clerk. Such a change cannot be considered a

promotion, as it does not involve an increase in responsibilities,

emoluments, or status, in line with the principles established in the

M. L. Capoor (supra) case.

Furthermore, in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R.

Santhakumari Velusamy, (2011) 9 SCC 510, this Hon’ble Court
held that "Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or both
and is a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade, or
honour and dignity. Though in the traditional sense promotion refers
to advancement to a higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may
include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a
different post. However, the mere fact that both—advancement to a
higher position and advancement to a higher pay scale—are
described by the common term 'promotion' does not mean that they
are the same. The two types of promotion are distinct and have
different connotations and consequences."
In this judgment, the Court clarified that an increase in pay alone,

without movement to a higher post, is considered upgradation. An

increase in both pays and rank constitutes a promotion. In the

present case, the appointment of Respondent No. 2 did not result in

 24

an increase in pay or movement to a higher post. Hence, it cannot be

termed a promotion.

The Hon’ble High Court's oversight of these critical legal principles

and precedents has led to an incorrect interpretation of the nature of

the appointment in question. The re-designation of Respondent No. 1

to the post of Share Clerk does not satisfy the criteria for promotion

as established by the Supreme Court of India. Consequently, the

conclusion that the post was to be filled by direct recruitment is

fundamentally flawed.

vi. The Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate a critical fact: in the

general department of Respondent No. 2's mill, there was only one

sanctioned post of Share Clerk. This fact is corroborated by the

written statement of Respondent No. 2 in the case at hand, where it

was admitted that the post is promotional in nature and cannot be

filled by individuals from other departments.

The admission by Respondent No. 2 highlights the intent to provide

the petitioner and similarly situated employees a fair opportunity for

promotion, without which their professional growth would stagnate.

Specifically, it was stated that "The plaintiff does not come in the

line of promotion of Share Clerk. Under the Service rules, the

qualification for promotion to the post of Share Clerk is as under:

Matric with 5 years’ experience as Cane Kamdar/Daftri/Store

Boy/Token Boy/Centre Chowkidar/Peon or similar equal posts. The

Departmental Promotion Committee will consider the mode of

 25

filling the vacant post and claims for promotion of the eligible

employees. Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right."

Additionally, the written statement asserts that the Departmental

Promotion Committee is responsible for considering eligible

employees for promotion to vacant posts. This underscores that the

post of Share Clerk is indeed promotional, not one to be filled by

direct recruitment. The committee's role in evaluating candidates

based on experience and departmental service further supports the

promotional nature of the post.

vii. That the Hon'ble High Court overlooked the fact that there were no

clear criteria established for selecting a candidate from the seven

applicants. The Promotion Committee reviewed the applications

solely based on the applicants' service records. The process itself

underscores that the post was intended to be promotional in nature,

as such methods are typically used in promotions rather than direct

recruitment.

viii. Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that respondent no. 2 in the

written statement in Civil Suit no. 120/1/23.11.2005 titled as (Dhare

Singh v. The Meham Coop.) has categorically admitted that the

impugned post is promotional in nature. The relevant extract from

that written statement is reproduced here for Hon'ble court's kind

perusal which reads as follows: -

3.* "...There is only one sanctioned post of Clerk in

the Share Section which was held by Shri Jasbir
Singh who stands promoted to the post of Legal
Assistant w.e.f. 03.12.2005. Due to work load in the
 26

Section help is taken from employees of other

Sections. The plaintiff belongs to Cane Section being
seasonal permanent Clerk. He will be considered for
promotion to the post of Permanent Cane Clerk
whenever vacancy arises."
*4. * "The plaintiff does not come in the line of
promotion of Share Clerk. Under the Service rules,
the qualification for promotion to the post of Share
Clerk is as under: -
Matric with 5 years’ experience as Cane
Kamdar/Daftri/Store Boy/Token Boy/Centre
Chowkidar/Peon or similar equal posts. The
Departmental Promotion Committee will consider the
mode of filling the vacant post and claims for
promotion of the eligible employees. Promotion
cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
ix. That the impugned judgement of the High Court erred in not

considering certain vital points which had a material bearing on the

controversy between the parties and no decision was given as

regards them and therefore, the impugned judgement is liable to be

set aside and quashed on that count.

x. In any view of the matter, the impugned judgement passed by the

High Court is unstainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

a) In view of the grounds mentioned in the paragraph 5 hereinabove,

the impugned Judgement is clearly unsustainable and bad in law and

therefore, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present

Special Leave Petition, if the operation and effect of the impugned

judgement dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in

 27

RSA No. 4303/2016 is not stayed it will cause irreparable injury to

the petitioner.

b) Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice dated:19.06.2024 to

the petitioner, asking why the petitioner should not be demoted from

the post of Share Clerk to Peon in compliance with the impugned

judgment. If the interim relief is not granted to the petitioner, the

petitioner will be demoted to post of peon by respondent no. 2.

c) Because, the petitioner has a good prima facie case and are likely to

succeed in the case. The balance of convenience tilts overwhelming

in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents. It is in the

interest of justice that the interim relief as prayed for is granted to

avoid any hardship and irretrievable injury to the petitioner.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be

pleased to:

a) Grant Special Leave to appeal against the final judgement and order

08.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in

RSA No. 4303/2016;

b) Pass any other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble court

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to: –

 28

a) Grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the impugned final judgement and

order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in RSA No. 4303 of 2016,

till the hearing and final disposal of the instant Special Leave

Petition;

b) Pass any other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, YOUR HUMBLE

PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn By: Nishant Khatri

Drawn On: 24.06.2024 Filed By:

Filed On: 27.06.2024 (Advocate for the Petitioner)
 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

Jasbir Singh & Anr. …Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave petition is confined only to the facts in

relation to the pleadings before the Court/ Tribunal whose order is challenged

and the documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts,

documents have been taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is

further certified that the copies of the documents/annexure attached to the

Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in

the petition or to make out grounds in the special leave petition for

consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This Certificate is given on the basis of

the instruction given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the

S.L.P.

Drawn By: Nishant Khatri

Drawn On: 24.06.2024 Filed By:

Filed On: 27.06.2024 (Advocate for the Petitioner)
 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
|ORDER XXIRULE 3(1)(a) of S.C. Rules 2013]
[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar ..Petitioner

VersuS
Jasbir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Pradeep Yadav, aged around 52 years R/o Village

Kharkara, Tehsil Meham, District-Rohtak, Haryana -125121, presently at

New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. Iam a citizen of India and Petitioner in the above-named petition,and as

such Iam fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case

and I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That this Petition has been drafted by my advocate on my instructions

and Ihave gone through the same and I state that the contents of the same

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. The Synopsis &List of Dates and Para Number- Ito 4of the Main Writ
94on:are true to my personal knowledge and belief and/or are derived
KAMLESYCHAMDRAY
TRIPAAOm r cords. Para No. 5-6 are based on legal advice. Para No. 7-8 are
AREA: C.L. DELAI
Reyd. NG, 16924
Expiry Dale

OVT.
14-02-2025
OF I N D
 31

the Prayer Clause.

4. The Annexures annexed with this petition are true copies of the originals.
ExeOU0epeneni

Presence

m y
DEPONENT

e
S igned
2.7 JUN 2024
VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delni on 27.06 2024 that the contents
fdentiy

h e g

I
W h o
of the affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and no part thereof is false and no material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
CERTIFIE' YAT THE CONTENTS EXPLANED TO THE
IEPANENT EXECUTNT WO S
KAMLESH CHANDRA UNDERSTPANB AFFIRMED &DSPSED 96ENO ECTYTO
TRiDATI
ARELDELHI
ERAGHOELA
:i. .. i6324 iETPY THE EXEUANTTAPINAS
Erate HGND MPRESENS
13-02-2025 <AMMESH QHANORA TRPAL Arocate Reg. No. 1692%
ART BLIC AL. OELAN)
OF

27 JUN 2024
 ANNEXURE- 32
P1

H
j er elk
CoopSugar
Date
SureshKumar
Case working
Institution Sukhpreet
Meham
Suresh
Singh
PeonDivnMeham
underthe
Versus Managing
RohtakCooptetc
Director Judge
The Meham

g
Sr
yjm 3
Court
Civil ofDeeision
Date In
of theNoMills Ltd
1471452015
1282013
ofof2013
asKumar Distt
Vs The Additional
Meham Civil Plaintiff A 0
1 The Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd Meham through i ts
Managing Director
2 Jasbir Singhso Sh JageRam working as ShareClerk in the Meham

Cooperative SugarMills Ltd MehamDistt Rohtak

Defendants

Suit for Declarationand l1nnliorv Injunction

Present Sh VS Singhal counselfor theplaintiff
Sh SP Vats counselfor the defendant
no 1

Sh PS Dhakacounsel for no
2
JUDGMENT

The present suit has been led by the plaintiff againstthe

defendantsseeking to the effect thatthe impugned
a decreefor declaration

order dated 1872013 whereby defendant

no
2 on the post
of ShareClerk is illegalnull and void and the plaintiffis entitled
to the
promotion
from the post of Peon to the post of Share Clerk
wef
1872013 alongwithother resultant benets and a
further decree for
injunction
directing
the defendantno
1 to promotethe plaintiff

from the post of Peon to the

postof Share Clerk wef 1872013

deg

made

an remir
 33

SureshKumarVs TheMehamCooptetc

otherresultantbenets may kindlybe passed

alongwith in favour of the

plaintiffand against
thedefendants
with costs

2 In brief the facts of the case of the plaintiffare that plaintiffwas

appointed
as Peon on 1021993 The work and conduct of plaintiffis

quite om the dateof his initial appointment

and never
gave

any chanceof any complaint

The defendantno 1 published
a noticedated

752013 for the post of ShareClerk and according

to the notice it
was

stated that any employee

who is interestedto work on
the post of Share

Clerk can applyfor the same within ten daysThe plaintiffwas one
of the
applicantThe defendant
no 1 had passedoffie orderdated 1872013vide

no 2 has been redesignated

which the defendant from the
postof Cane
Clerk seasonalto the post of share clerk with immediateeffect The

name
of the plaintiffwas considered and his application
was
rejected
that the work and conduct of is not
plaintiff good and he
has suspended
twice It is pertinent
to mention herethat the
work and
conduct ofthe plaintiffwas quite and goodand the
suspension
of any employee
is not a punishmentIt is submitted
herethatthe
plaintiff
was
suspended
on false and as such lateronhe
was reinstated
Therefore
suspension
cannot be counted
as This order is illegal
and bad in law on the following
grounds

21 That the post of share clerk is a promotionalpost and

the
qualicationfor the postof shareclerk is as
under

Z
zai59MeaI2
J6
M rm E1klt

etcem

Ce 53Q
 34

XV seasonal
qualication
equal
General
1872013 Computer
Division
Knowledge
qualification
plaintiff
Exp
D
prepared
post
promoted
Further being
epartment
separately
qualication
preferred
defendant
be
cbeen
Share
the
favour
necessary
isthe
years
the p2nd
Academic
be
Further
Clerk
The
osts
in Share
Cane
andthe required according
Department
statedthat
2is plaintiff
graduate
from
Cane
stated
doClerk
The
under
Both ip
plaintiff
Suresh department
oupto
that
the
withdefendant
but
forscomputer
post
is
but
the0referably
AcaclemicExp
matric
due
senior
the
his
years
Kumarthe
level
and requisite
post
Ram
Peon
to
Exp
Hence
the
toiof
sthe keeping
Meharseniority
illegally
plaintiffqualications
political
necessary
shareclerk
Or
be
Meham
all
peon the
It
the
is knowledge
working
preferred
ChowkidarPeon
Graduate
Coopt
matric Computer
separate
post
also
andis 1st
requisite
Narain
into
for seniority
working
rlist
such qDivision
pertinent
ejected
interference
with Peon
ualications
share
direct
andDass
he appointment
give
consideration
computer
promotion
toupto
forshould
Cane
clerk
awho
mention
the
list
yearsPeon
the
post
Clerk
similar
with
undue
is
have
local
level
the
in
foris
9g
of
Sr
b
MLA
l2
willNo 1
toof As at no ie
not
n 3fulll
of
2 5 Sh
of fulfills
Vs
casenowise
will
most
TheBCon
was2
to was
are as of
etcof
as of
a3as of
to or 0 wef
exp
are to
name of
at7
or
i

xnt9i
Wt
X

cps 12zlf
 35

Jr
33
Suresh Kumar Vs The Meham Cooptetc

here that the post of share clerk exists in General in which

the plaintiffis working

department
d Further stated that as perrule 6 of servicerulesfor the employees
of

the Cooperative
SugarMills in the State of the method of

recruitmentis as under

1 By promotion

ii On Dcputation

iii Direct recruitment

Defendantno 1 shouldll up the said postby way of abovesaid

methodand thereis no provision

in the rules to ll up the saidpost by
re

an employeeThereforethe above said order for

re

of defendantno 2 is againstthe provisions

of rules
of

Sugar
Mills

e
The plaintiffis fullyeligibleto be from thepost of Peon
I

to the post of Share Clerk It is also pertinent

to mentionherethat because

of abovesaid illegal
of passing orderand the defendant
no

2 the plaintiffwould be deprived

ofhis legalrightof promotiontill
the
dateof retirement

Further stated that plaintiffrequestedthe defendant

no 1 to
withdraw the abovesaidorder beingillegalunwarranted

malade arbitrary
againstthe provisions
of law and also againstthe

principles
of naturaljusticeand also requested
to
promotethe plaintiffas
the defendant
no 2 has been illegallybut in vain and the

C 63222
es 9 3 3
 36

514 from
leniency
regarding
against
dismissed
plaintiffHence
allege
good
suspension Upon
grounds
defendants
dated
he
mentioned
and
his
andclean
has
and istmerits
942008
the
work
false
On
statedthat
hands
dated
the required
plaintiff
andcontesting
2092005
942008
registration
thatthe
he
tin
wicenotice
have
conduct
it
locus
and
paraand
is nally Managing
suppressed
application
registered
vexatious
defendant
further
vide
the
workpresent lncharge
plaintiff
Defendant
bSuresh
It refused
ground
standiand
utorderdated
the
is
the
defendants
the
also good
wrong
presentsuit
and conduct
Kumar
to the the
has
to allege
against
10122001
plaintiff
appeared
plaintiff
ssubmittedthatthe
3uit
inproper
materialfacts
Director
that
and Police
he
while
he
the complaint
holdplaintiff
thas
he plaintiff
taking
action
thatthe
is
has
Meham lfees
any plaintiff
rejected
statedthatthereis
also
pay Station
ies
and
heed
alsoplaintiff
suspended
2192005
Coopt
it On
by
preliminary
against
merits
against
letter
the
denied
a
tosuit
ndCourt
thequite
the
and
to
inquiry
place
separate
tlot
the suspended
t452010
defendant
Police
isof
request
the
the
personhecomplaints
liable
suit
Itplaintiff
o
point
plaintiff
bjections
Court
is
facts
and
Station
officer
is
written
wrong
under
and
false
the
with
that
19 the
be
35
1
3
to
statement
on
on was
on ivolous
reenstated
no was no
on 3 Lab
anot
of no
case
e
ofthe
2no
Vs to
no of
The
was
cause 1
court of
sent
was not
led
come
was
eLc wice
to
was
on was DD no of
to no
as
 37

e evidenceplaintiff
plaintiff
documents
evidence
examined
6for plaintiff
Singh
dismissedwith
the thereaer Sugar
the
andthe
facts
On
The
From
record
also
the plaintiff
alongwith
allegations
pleadings
Whether
Whether
Rohtash
mark
for
mentioned
Whether
present
the hand
closed
defendants
Whetherthe
mentioned
Whether
the
the
other
tenderedcertain
the the
has
Kumar
purpose
the
the
the
mark
the
Sureshplaintiff
plaintiff
evidence
examined
din
ecree
rebuttal
suit
suit
the
rebutthe
parathe
the
the
order Jagjeet
documents
plaint
plaintiff
mandatory
parties
evidence
the
hh
Court
the
has
as
isplaintiff
plaintiff
3imself
closed
entitled
Theit by
behalf
fee
is
the
and following
thereafter
prayed
Jasveer
locus
Meham
to hthe
found
as
his plaintiff
andjurisdiction
injunction
Defendant plaintiff
Coopt
closed
toCourt guilty
isFurther
the
standi
thatby
who denying
decreefor
been
order
oissues
the Thereafter
2properly
maintainable
Court
prayed
has tendering
remaining
Besides
tempering
defendants
learnedcounsel
tendered
after
the
in
has declaration
presentsuit
the
Inorder
the
also
examined
rebuttal
aand framed
present
valued
denied
the
itbe
IMhAgt

of
54
averments
as 6of
per
4
5
2
31
and
as Relief
suitof
G PW1
OPD
costs
as form
to in toof1Mill
OPD
of
Kumar
as of
DW1
ofof
was
no Meham
Vs
to oncase
noprove
no of
3
was
cause
was
us
e
PW3of action
not DW2
case
not
as as
etc
nas
Pw2
toOPD
le OPD
werefor in
OPP
some
i lA14

6 er
ma 6 W
J
E
1 1

7J95
K
 38

26

a
Suresh Kumar Vs The Meham Cooptetc

7 I have heard Learned Counsel for the partiesat lengthand have

gone through
the case le carefullyMy issuewisefindingsare SW5 5
under
4

issue no1

8 The onus
toprove this issueis on the plaintiffandin order to prove
this issuethe plaintiffhasexaminedSurenderSinghas PWl and plaintiff

himself examinedas PW2

9 On the other hand the examined Rohtash Kumar as

DW1 and Jasveeras DW2

10 In rebuttal evidenceplaintiffhas examinedJagjeet

as PW3 who

and thereafter
tenderedsome documents rebuttalevidencewas
closed by

Courtorder

11 Learned Counsel for the plaintiffhas argued

that the plaintiffwas

appointed
as Peon on 1021993 and no
1 a notice

dated762013 for the postof Share Clerk and the plaintiffemployed

for

the same He furtherargued

thatplaintiffis at Sr no 3 in the seniority
list

of the Peon and peon at Sr no 1 and were

not eligibleso he is entitled
to promoteon the post of shareclerk but defendantno I has redesignated

defendant no 2 as a share clerk from the Cane Clerk SeasonalHe

J1th6l arguedthat the work and conduct of plaintiffremain

the requisite
and he possessed qualicaion and Sh Ram Mehar and Sh
Narain Dass who are at Sr no I and 2 do not fulfill the requisite

qualicationso he should have been promotedom the post of

peon to

fr
 39

31

Suresh 2
Kumar
Vs The MehamCoopt
etc

the post of Share Clerk He furtherargued

that the post of ShareClerk is a

promotional
postand defendant
no 2 works in Cane and is

not liable of general

department
so defendant
no 1 without following

Service Rules for the Employees

of the Cooperative
SugarMills in the

Stateof Haryana
hereinafterreferredto service rules has a

person from anotherdepartment

as Share Clerk In the end it was argued
thatthereis no provision
in the rule to ll up the above stated
post by re
an employee
He has placed
relianceupon authoritiestitled
as

Sziv ParmpSingh Vs Union uf lrrrfia rim 1wry 20 I 4 RS PampH

463 and Capt Nirnmiit Sing1 Slimm I1 nlers Is T he

State of

PunLab and others 1994 2 RS PampHL3In the end he prayedfor

decreeing
of his suit

12 On the other hand Ld counsel for the defendant

no 1 has argued
that the plaintiffwas not consideredfor
Clerk
thepostof Share on
the
groundthat his work and conduct is not goodand his application
was

rejected
due to this reason He further arguedthat the plaintiff
was not
eligibleto be promotedfrom the post of peonto the post of share clerk
no 2 argued
The counsel for the defendant separately
and
arguedthatthe
plaintiffwas placedunder suspension
twice by defendants
no I and he
was reinstatcdon the groundthathe is person and leniency

is required
He irther arguedthattheplaintiffwas
hold guiltyand further
a
complaint him by Lab Incharge
has also been made against on
which
DD no 19dated 942008 was registered
at
Police StationMeham In the
 40

Suresh
9
KumarVs TheMehamCooptetc

end it was argued

thatsincethe work and conduct ofplaintiflis not good

so both the counsel prayed

for dismissalofthe suit

13 Aer hearingthe rival contentionsof both the partiesand gone

throughthe case le carefullyit transpires

that in the present case
it is
admittedfact that was appointed
as
peon under defendant
no 1
since 1021993 It is also admitted fact that defendant
no
2 was re

designated
from the postof Cane Clerk to Share Clerk The seniority
of

plaintiffat Sr no 3 in the list of peon

is also not in dispute
The plaintiff

in his plaintas well as inhis examinationinchief

has statedthat the

defendant no 1 published
a notice dated 762013 for the
post of share
clerk and according
to the notice it was statedthat
any employee
who is
interested
to work on the postof shareclerk can
applyfor the same within
ten days Now the case of the plaintiffis that the
post of shareclerk is a

promotionalpost and defendantno 2 cannot

be redesignated
as share
clerk defendantno 2 works in cane
and plaintiff
works in the general of the Sugar
Mill He took the
pleathat
both are
separateand the seniority
list has to be prepared

separately
He also pleaded
that defendantno
1 has also not followed

service rules while defendantno 1 tool the stand that plaintiffis

not

eligiblefor the post becausehis work and conduct is

not

Further plaintiff
denied this fact while defendant
no 2 also pleaded
that
the work and conduct of the plaintiffwas
not The plaintiff
also pleadedthat he is at Sr no 3 in the senioritylist of
peon Ex P3

is tram

wue
6323
 41

SureshKumarVs The Meham Cooptetc

Ram Mehar and Narayan

Dass who are at Sr no l and 2 are
not eligible
becausetheydo not possessed
the requisite
qualication As statedabove

the seniority
of plaintiffis not disputed
by defendant The case
of the

defendantis that the plaintiffis not eligible

for this postbecausehis work

and conduct was not during

past years andfurther the post of

ShareClerk is not a promotional

post

14 The plaintiffhashimself admittedthatas

per the noticedated

762013 any person who is interestedto work on the postof shareclerk

can
applyfor the same hencethe pleaof theplaintiffthatdefendantno 2
works in cane department
and belongsto another and
he

belongs
to general is not tenablebecause
any employee
can

applyfor the post of share clerk The plaintiffhas examined Surender

SinghRecord Keeper
PW1
andtendered
as on
record document
Ex Pl
to Ex P10 regarding
his list 2md
seniority his qualication Here it is

relevant to mentionthat mere the requisite

qualicationdoes

not mean that a person hasa rightover a

post The
has a
rightto select him on the basis of his qualication
as
by well as

the other relevantparametersThe plaintiffhas

alleged
that

defendantno I has not followed the rules so

the appointment
of
defendantno 2 for the post of share clerk is illegalThe
plaintiffhas
examinedhimselfas PW2 and tenderedhis afdavit Ex PW2a
wherein
he has reiteratedthe averments made in the plaint During
cross

exainination regarding
some suggestions his worlt and
conduct was put to

tr W
 42

44
Suresh Kumar Vs The Meham Cooptetc

him to which he statedthat his work and conduct was He

himself furtherdenied the fact regarding

awarding
of any punishment
in

department
enquiryover him On the other hand defendantno I

examinedRohtash KumarLegalAssistant as DWl who tenderedorder

dated962009 Ex DWl He also tenderedorder dated l762O02 Ex D

2 in both the orders some son of punishment enquiry

in department has

been awarded on the plaintiff

VClD
1762002 Ex D2 He was
orderedto
be reversedto the lower gradepennanently
This means
thatthe plaintiff

has been awarded butthe plaintiffhas led

punishment
a

lix P
judgment 18 in rebuttalevidencewhich goes to show thatthe order

dated 1762002 Ex D2 has been set aside The plaintiffhasalso placed

on record Ex P12 in a rebuttalevidence to show thatthe order Ex D2

has also been not in force by virtue of orderdated 3112015 Ex P12

A

perusalof documentEx P12 showsthat thisorder hasbeen after

the appointment
of defendantno 2 to thepost of Share Clerk This
means

has beenawardedupon
thatthe order Ex DWI bywhich punishment the

plaintiffis still in existenceat the time of his applyingfor the

post of
Share Clerk Hence it is amplyclear that the plaintiffhas been
awarded
by way of above stated orderwhich has
punishment
not been set aside at
the time of rejection for thepost of ShareClerk
of his application

15 As discussed above there

possession of requisite
qualicationdoes not giveto any person a
rightto a particularpost It is
the subjective
satisfaction
ofthe to
appoint
a person
ofa post

5 rise
no
gene39
 43

hi

Suresh
Kumar Vs The Meham
4
Cooptetc

after the entire parameterslike his character and conduct

besideshis qualication The plaintifffailed to show thatthepostof share

clerk is
apromotionalpost
Furtherhe has failed to explain
how his right

has beenestablishedfor the postof ShareClerk No rightof the plaintiff

has been infringed

As discussedabove any from the SugarMill

can
applyfor this post Hence it cannot be said that defendant
no 2 has

not been appointed

as per the service rules for the employees
of

SugarMill in the Stateof Haryana

Henceplaintiffis not

entitled to the declarationand the relief of mandatory

injunctionThe

authority
cited by learnedcounsel for the plaintiffis not
applicable
to the

factsof the presentcase for the reasons tlia cause ofaction in this suit is

differentfrom the authoritiescited above Accordingly

issue
no I is
herebydecidedin favour of the defendants
and against
theplaintiff

kueno2 to

16 Onus to prove these issuesis on the defendants these

issueswere not pressedat the time of argumentsEven otherwise

there
is
nothingon record or in evidenceto show as to how the suit of the plaintiff

is not maintainable
how
the plaintiffhas
or
no cause
of action andlocus
standi or how the suithas not been properly
valued for the
purpose of
court fee and Accordingly
theseissues are herebydecided

in favour of the plaintiffand against

the defendants

26T
to am tisgsa

K 32 J
 44

4V

SureshKumar Vs The Meham Cooptetc

Relief

17 In view of the aforesaid discussionthe suit of the plaintiffis

accordingly
dismissedwith no order as to costs Decreesheetbe prepared

File be consigned
to the record room afterdue compliance

Stilhpreet ngh
AddlCivil JudgeSr Divn
Pronounced
Dated in OpenCourt
1452015 Meham

Note All the thirteen pages of the judgment

have been checked and
signed
byme

2
Singh
I

en
Addl Civil JudgeSr Divn
Meham

7
We
r
a
 45

43

Cl2e C C
C 19 Sleo
4 ma
J

SureshKumar Vs The llenam Cooptetc

Decreesheet

Value ofthe suit for the purposeofjurisdlction value Rs200

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee Rs 50

In the court of SinghAdditional Civil JudgeSr Divn

Sukhpreet
Meham

Civil Case No 1471 of20l3

Date of Institution 1282013
Date ofDecision 1452015

SureshKumar workingas Peon underthe Managing

Director The Meham
CoopSugarMills Ltd MehamDistt Rohtak

Plaintiff
Versus

1 The Meham Cooperative SugarMills Ltd Meham through its

Managing Director
2 Jasbir Singhso Sh JageRam working as ShareClerk in the Meham

Cooperative SugarMills Ltd MehamDistt Rohtak

Defendants

Claim for

A decreefor declarationto the effect thatthe impugned

orderdated
1872013 whereby
redesignating
defendantno 2 on the post of Share
Clerk is illegal null and void and the plaintiffis entitled to the promotion
from the post of Peon to the post of Share Clerk wef 1872013

alongwithother resultantbenefits and a further decree for mandatory

injunction
directing
the defendantno 1 to promotethe plaintifffrom the
post of Peon to the post of ShareClerllt wef 1872013 alongwith
other
resultant benefits may kindlybe passedin favour of the plaintiffand
against
the defendantswith costs

aint Presented on 1282013

i5 mi 3 1 5r lms

lti
m
 LL1A
46

14

SureshKumarVs The 15
MehamCooptetc

This suit comingon this day for final disposalbefore

me

Sukhpreet
SinghAddl Civil JudgeSr Divn Meham in the
presence
of Sh VS Singhal
counsel for the plaintiffSh 81 Vats counsel for the
defendantno 1 and Sh RS Dhaka counsel for the defendant
no
2
It is orderedthatthe suit of the plaintiffis dismissedwith
no
order as to costs

etnitgt Costs

Plaintiff Defendants
1 Stamp
on 500 0000

2 Stamp
on Power
I

200 0200

3 Processfee soco
2

0000
4 Witnesses 0000 0000

5 Misc 0000 0000

Total 10200 200

Given undermy hand and the

seal
of the court
this 14th day

Sukhprcet Singh
Addl Civil JudgeSr Divn
0fMay 2015 Meham

was
422 D
ht
NW 34 13
novvit u
lt we
 ANNEXURE-P2 47

Wt 3UziW
Suresh Kumar V The Coop Sugar
Mill Meham
1

IN THE COURT OF SUDHIR JIWAN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE ROHTAK

Civil Appeal No 91 of 20152016

Date of Institution 2705201519012016
of Order 19072016

Suresh Kumar workingas Peon underthe Managing

Director The Meham
Coop SugarMills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

PlaintiffAppellant

Versus

1 The Meham Cooperative

SugarMills Ltd Meham through
its
ManagingDirector

2 Jasbir Singhson of JageRam workingas Share

Clerkin The
Meham SugarMills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

DefendantsRespondents

l Appealagainst
the Judgment
and decree dated 14052015

passedby the Court of Sh SinghAdditional

Sukhpreet
Civil JudgeSeniorDivision Meham vide which the suit
of the plaintiffhas been dismissed

judgment
and decree dated 14052015 and for decretal of

suit byaccepting
the appeal

Present Sh V S Singhalcounsel for the appellant

Sh S P Vats counsel for the no 1

Sh KuldeepSinghDangi counsel for the no 2

 48

SureshKumar V The Coop SugarMill Meham

2

JU D G M E N T

This appealhas been by the

hereinafterwill be referred as plaintiffagainstthe judgment

and decree

dated 14052015 vide which the suit of the plaintifffiled against

hereinafter
will be referred as defendants
was

The plaintiffhas pleaded

thathe was appointed
as a Peon on

10021993 The defendant no 1 published

a notice dated 07062013 for

the postof Share according

to the notice it was statedthat any

employee
who is interested to work on the post of Share Clerk can apply
for the same within 10 daysThe plaintiffwas one of the applicants
The
no
1 had passed
office order dated 18072013 vide which the
no
2 has been redesignated
from the post of Cane Clerk

seasonal to the postof Share Clerk with immediate effect The name of

the plaintiff
was considered and his application
was rejected
mentioning

that the work and conduct of the plaintiffis not goodand he has been

twice The plaintiffhas pleaded

that the impugned
order dated

is illegaland bad
in law on the following
grounds

8 The post of Share Clerk is a promotional

post and the

for the postof Share Clerk is as under

cb 3v
5
qualification
for the post of Share Clerk for direct
4

is Academic graduate preferablyBCom Knowledge

of
 49

51 Suresh
l Kumar v The Coop SugarMill Meham
3

promotionthe qualification
required
is AcademicExpGraduate with 3

yrs experience
or
102 2 Division with 5 years or matric

1 Division with 7 years experience

as Cane KamdarDaftriCentre

or similar equal posts Knowledgeof Computeris

necessary Computer
upto 0 level will be preferred
The plaintifffulfills
all the requites for the post of Share Clerk but his case was

illegallyrejected
to giveundue favour to defendant no 2 due to the

politicalinterferenceof the local MLA

b In the seniority
list of Peon the name of the plaintiff
is

at no 3 but Ram Mehar and Narain Dass who are at Sr no 1 8 2 do not

fulfill the requisite for the post of Share Clerk beingunder

matric Hence keeping

into consideration the qualification
the plaintiffis

senior most Peon and as such he should have been promoted

fromthe post

of Peon to the postof ShareClerk wef 18072013

c The defendant no 2 was

workingas a Cane Clerk

seasonalin and the plaintiff

Cane Department is workingas a Peon in

General Both the are separateand the seniority

list is to be prepared
separately
ie wise Here it is pertinent
to

mention that the post of Share Clerk exists in General Department

in

which the plaintiff

is working

if E
C
ti
cl As per the rule 6 of Service Rules for the employees
of
F 5

3 the
ua
SugarMills in the State of Haryanathe method of
A

under
l
W I

i By promotion WEST B

ZenU 2
Bur 945
 50

V lfills
The
legal
the
designating
designation
post
the impugned
methodright
declared
promote
post post
defendant
the
and
Peon
that
that promotion
plaintiff
plaintiff
iiShare
othe
Suresh
fdecree
there
theorderalong
because
defendant
thethe
is mandatory
Shareisplaintiff
deputation
defendant
Clerkprovision
post
should
basis
datedfrom foregoing
passing
entitled
recruitment injunction
against
fullyeligible
Coop
promotion
plaintiff
p leading
redesignation
Sugar
illegal
along by wayof
illegal
plaintiff
promoted
Cooperative
mention
wef
2
to of of
18072013
A of
On Therefore
the date
V resultantbenefits
the
Share
be post
up
the
declared
the
the
qua
retirement
above
rules
the
Peon
said
the post
Here
above
rules
be
said
from
also
thebe passed
post
said
the
be
the deprived
post pertinent
other
of
Meham
also
and post
defendant
said
order
defendant
Share
has prayed
Sugar
by
resultant
abovesaid
favour
from
Peon
and It the
be
on
iii
e an of
tono The
Kumar
On
Direct
of
1
no of
with
till
Clerk
of
no18072013
wef
of
no 2 2
fill
The
isfor
18072013
in of
4 Clerk
of toto Mill
wfill
ould
to itup
of
null
with
is of void
inof o
forf no
Clerk
no his
of
t1
to
reo

2 defendant
no
1 in its written statement has pleaded
that
was
rejected
on the groundthat
his work and
gt
3 3
if
1

ducfwa not goodand he had been

nJ
twice It is wrong
AEE
 51

52
SureshKumar v The Coop Sugar
Mill Meham
5

allegethat the post in questionwas promotional

one It is incorrect that

forboth the separatesenioritylistwas to be prepared

The

suit filed bythe plaintiffbe dismissed

4 The defendant no 2 in his written statement has pleaded
that

it is correct thatanswering
defendant was redesignated
from the post of

Cane Clerk seasonalto the post of Share Clerk There were lot of

against
complaints the plaintiffThe plaintiff
was placed
under suspension

twice vide order dated 10122001 21092005 and 04052010 The

plaintiffwas reinstated on the ground

thathe is and leniency
but
the plaintiffwas held guiltyby the EnquiryOfficer On

Lab Incharge
also made complaint
against
the On

09042008 Managing
Director sent a letter to Police Station regarding

registration
of case againstthe plaintiffand DD no 19 dated 09042008

was
registered
against
the plaintiffin the Police Station As per the

al egationsthe plaintiffwas found guiltyfor tampering

the record of

Sugar
Mill Meham The suit filed bythe plaintiff
be dismissed

5 The plaintiffin the replication

reiteratedthe case put forth by

him He in his replication

has also pleaded
that methodof recruitment for

the employees
of CooperativeSugarMill in the State of Haryanais

mentioned in rule 6 of the Service Rules and the defendant no 1 should

fillgd
up the saidpostsbyway of that method There is no provision

5in the fill up the said posts by redesignating

the employees

said order of redesignation

of defendant 2 is against
the
a
no

pg
K
AtfiIT D

b3ltv D
S1e49
 52

Suresh Kumar v The Coop SugarMill Meham

6

6 From the pleading

of the partiesthe followingissues were

bythe learned lower court

1 Whether the plaintiff

is entitledto the decree for

declaration alongwith decreeof mandatory

injunction
as prayed
for OPP

2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff

is not

maintainable in the presentformOPD

3 Whether the plaintiffhas no cause of action

OPD

4 Whether the plaintiff

has no locus standito file

the present
suitOPD

5 Whether the suit of the plaintiffhas not been

properly
valued for the purpose of Court fee and

jurisdictionOPD

6 Relief

7 The plaintifffor provinghis case examinedthree witnesses

The defendants
on their behalf also examined
two witnesses

8
The seniority
list of Peon showing
plaintiffat serial no
3 has

been
placedon record as Ex P3 and Ex P5 In the aforesaidseniority

V lists
of defendantno 2 nowherefigureThe seniority
list of Cane
name
r F 9
Vin
It defendantno 2 at serial no 23 has been placedon record
3 K J
VA
he Matriculationcertificate of plaintiffhas been placedon
U
i
x
as
ea fr41 1
2
ire P7 and Ex P8 and the 102 certificate of plaintiff has been

3Cp3
fed
on record as Ex P9 B31359D

logyl16
 53
7

ti
SureshKumar v The SugarMill Meham

I
9 has stated that plaintiff
The DW1 Rohtashin his testimony

was
appointed
as Peon on
10021993 Jasbir Singhdefendant
no
2 was

appointed
as Cane Clerk seasonalon 01011993 There is separate

senioritylist of each department

It is correct that Suresh plaintiff was

on permanentbasis and Jasbir defendant

no
2 on seasonal

basis The seasonal worker were on parttime basis It is wrong to suggest

that defendant no 2 has been wrongly

redesignated
It is also wrong to

suggestthat defendant no 2 has been redesignated

for depriving
the

of the plaintiff
promotion

10 The counsel for the plaintiffat the time of argument

that
by the defendantsby
the post of Share Clerk is to be filled

of promotionThe aforesaid fact has been admitted bythe defendant

no
1 in the written statement Ex P6 filed in Civil Suit no

120123112005 titled as Dhare Singhv The Meham Coop In the

aforesaid written statement defendant no 1 has also admitted that Cane

S ction Staff beingemployee

of different is not to be

considered for the postof Share Clerk The revised qualification

Ex P10

shows that the post of Cane Clerk and Share Clerkfalls under the same

categoryie ClericalIII and the same are to be filled up as per rule 6 of

Service Rules of employees SugarMills

of Cooperative in the State of

per the aforesaid rule there can not be any redesignation

as

by
v

D
defendant no 1 byredesignating
defendant no 2 to the
4I q El
pips Clerk The service record of the plaintiffat the time of
 54

Suresh Kumar v The Coop Sugar

Mill Meham
8

in the enquiryawarded to the plaintiffvide

dated 17062002 Ex D2 was
set aside bythe Court vide Judgment
15042004 Ex P17 The imposed
on the plaintiff
by the

defendant no 1 vide order dated 09062009 Ex DW1 was set aside by

the defendant no 1 vide order dated 21092009 Ex P14 On the basis of

aboveargumentsthe counselfor the plaintiff

has prayed
thatthe suit filed

bythe plaintiffbe decreed The counsel for the plaintiffhas relied the
on

titled as Shiv Partap Singhv Union of India amp

ors 2011 4

RSJ 463 Karnail Singhv Punjab State ElectricityBoard amp

ors 2006

4 RSJ 671 Dinesh Ch Roy v Chairman Balasore Gramy

a Bank amp

ors 2005 14 RSJ 202 and Capt NirmaljitSinghSandhu amp

ors v The

State of Punjabamp
ors 1994 2 RSJ 3

The counsels for the defendants at the time of argument

that the defendant

no
2 hasbeen rightly
redesignated
as Share

Clerk The plaintiffnever challenged

the notice vide which the post of

Share Clerk was advertisedthereforethe plaintiffis estopped

from

challenging
theimpugned
order The counselfor the defendantshas relied

o the rulingtitled as Ravinder Kumar v Commissioner Municipal

Co oration Chandi arh amp
ors 2008 3 RSJ 433

12 In the written statement Ex P6 defendant no 1 has pleaded

l5
gttC33 2
5
l
is onlyone sanctionedpostof Clerk in the Share
3 3There
3 I

5go
I was held byShri Jasbir Singhwho stands to the
X
p st
I
ofLegalAssistant wef Due to work load in the Section
ArSl B
 55

cj Vi
promotion
Sugar
BoyToken
help
vdcant By
post
recruitment
Share
the
Ihas of
deputation
BoyCentre
from
being
promotion
post
Section
admitted
taken
Share
Suresh
recruitment
the
Under
andpost
Promotion
that
the of
plaintiff
By
aforesaid
rule post
thatmethod
beclaims
with
seasonal
the
claimed
State forof
Haryana
isPermanent
Service
Committee
years promotion
promotion
rules
aexperience
permanent
written
vService
does
Share
recruitment
other theofright
fromSugar
qualification
of
isemployees
consider
of showslays
the eligibleemployees
plaintiff
asdownequal
forpromotion
whenevervacancy
the
the
The
be
the
that Meham
mode
beofpromotion
the offilling
Cooperative
bmode
by
elongs
considered
posts
defendant
up
the way for
of
The
the
I
b
6
Promotion
13
1
Cane is
Direct
On
Clerk
Mills
to Matric
The
4in
cannot
states The
Clerk
Kumar
6 of
5as
ChowkidarPeon
ofunder
of
of
The
as
Coop
Cane
Rules
9 will
matterClerk
Sections
which
statement
not CClerk
lerk
comeor
aswillbe
in
similar
Cane
He
toMill
will
line
filled
under
of arisesof
to
no
vx I

0
G

g
he 2 good
By taking
Societies fulfilling
work and deputation
the qualification
on conduct from theand experience
Govt or Coop
of
l
0H

1
La
JZ5TE
7
 7 56

SureshKumar v The Coop SugarMill Meham

10

Mills in the Stateof Haryana

C Direct recruitment Direct recruitment through

Exchange
as per instructions of Govt issued

from time to time

15 The revised qualification

for the employee
of Cooperative

S garinMills Ex P10 shows that the post of Cane Clerk and ShareClerk

the same
categoryie ClericalIII

16 When admission of the defendant no 1 in the

statement Ex P6 revised qualificationfor the employeeof the

CooperativeSugar Mills Ex P10 and rule 6 of Service Rules of

employees
of SugarMills in the State of Haryanaare read
then
it is clear that the postof Share Clerk cannot be filled bythe
no
1 byredesignating
its employees
There is no provision
in

the rules for fillingthe postof Share Clerk byredesignating

an employee

Thereforethe redesignation
of defendant no 2 from the post of Cane

Clerk to the post of Share Clerk by the defendant no 1 vide impugned

order
dated18072013 Ex P15is illegalnull and void The seniority
list

P3 and Ex P4 when read together

with the educationalqualification

of plaintiffEx P7 Ex P8 and Ex P9 shows that plaintiff

being102 pass

lwaseligible
for the post of Share Clerk whereas Ram Mehar and Narain

it Dasswhge
c X names figureat serial no 2 in the senioritylist Ex P3
1 amp
V a9
3 andEx P4 n eligiblebeing9th and judgment
H ere not so 10th pass The
9 I l
ated Ex P17 and defendantno 1 order dated 21092009

Ex P14 shows that on the date of the impugned

order 18072013

Ex
Butcneasmgf

7
 57

Suresh Kumar v The Coop Sugar

Mill Meham
11

P15 there was nothing

adverse against
the plaintiffThe cause of action

for filingthe presentsuit arose to the plaintiff

when the impugned
order

passedby the defendant no

1 In the notice dated 07062013 the
no
1 invited application
from the employee
for the post of

Share Clerk and it was never disclosed by the

defendantno 1 that the
post
would be filled by way of redesignation
thereforethere

were no occasion for the plaintiff

to challenge
the notice

17 For the foregoing

reason the findings
of the learned Lower

Court on issue no 1 is set aside Issue no 1 is accordingly

decided in

favour of theplaintiff

18 The findings
of the learnedLower Court on issues no 2 to 5

are affirmed beingnot pressed

19 On the basis of above discussionthe impugned
judgment
decree
is set aside The suit of the plaintiff
is decreed with costs ie
order
dated 18072013 qua redesignation
of defendant no 2

on the post of Share Clerk is hereby

declaredillegalnull andvoid It is

declaredthat plaintiffis entitled for promotion

from the post of Peon to

the post of Share Clerk wef 18072013 alongwith other resultant

benefits injunctiondirecting
A decree of mandatory the defendant no 1

topromotethe plaintifffrom the postof Peon to thepostof Share Clerk

alongwith resultantbenefits is hereby
passed
in favour
0 5 J

The decreesheet be drawn accordingly

The appeal
stands
N

4 I costs

The lower court recordalong

with copy of this judgment
be
6
a

f59ilfJ
Enntnog
 58

1
Suresh Kumar Sugar
Mill Meham
i
v The Coop
12

sent back Appealfile be consigned

to the record room after due

compliance

MW
Dated
Announced in open Court Su ir iwa

19072016
RgAdditional District Judge

Certied to be true co

exmvnweo B vrdsnt

I 7 of
Examine Q1231 L l37l
 59

CW7
Decree Sheet

In Court of SudhirJiwan Additional District JudgeRohtak

Civil AppealNo 91 of 20152016

Date of Institution 2705201519012016
Date of Order 19072016

workingas Peon under the Managing

Suresh Kumar Director The Meham
CoopSugarMills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

Versus

1 The Meham Cooperative

SugarMills Ltd Meham throughits
Managing
Director

2 Jasbir Singhson of Jage Ram workingas Share Clerk in The

Meham SugarMills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

Appealagainstthe Judgment and decree dated 14052015 passed bythe

Court of Sh Sukhpreet Singh Additional Civil JudgeSenior Division
Meham vide which the suit of the plaintiffhas been dismissed

Claim for A decreefor declaration to the effect that the impugned

order

dated 18072013 whereby redesignatingdefendantno 2 on the post of

Clerk is illegal null and void and the plaintiffis
entitled to the

promotion
from the postof Peon to the postof Share Clerk wef 18072013
other resultant benefits and a further decree for mandatory
V
the defendant no 1 to promotethe plaintifffrom the
2

iboi
9

ifll of to
i 1 the post of Share Clerk wef 18072013 alon with other
3 j may
i g
s

kindlybe passed in favourof the plaintiff

and against
C The
upI C
with
costs

MEMO OF APPEAL

Suresh Kumar AppellantPlaintiff b

The Meham Coop SugarMills Ltd RespondentsDefendants

atedml
1
 W 60

The appellant
above namedappeal
to the Court at Rohtak from

the decree of Sh Sukhpreet Civil JudgeSenior Division

Rohtak dated 14052015 for the reasons vide grounds
of appeal
This appeal
comingfor hearing
on 19072016beforeme Sudhir
Jiwan Additional District JudgeRohtak in the presence of Sh V S
counsel for the appellantSh S P Vats counsel for the respondent

D0 and Sh Kuldeep SinghDangicounsel for the respondent

no 2

It has been ordered

that
the impugned judgment
and decreeis
set aside The suit of the plaintiffis decreedwith costs ie impugned
order

dated18072013 qua redesignation

of defendantno 2 on thepostof Share
Clerk is hereby
declaredillegalnull and void It is declaredthat plaintiffis
entitled for promotion
from the postof Peon to the postof ShareClerk wef

alongwith other resultant benefits A decree of mandatory

the
defendantno 1 to promotethe plaintifffrom the
postof Peon to the post of Share Clerk wef 18072013 alongwith
resultant benefitsis herebypassedin favour of the plaintiffThe appeal
stands allowedwith costs

COSTS OF APPEAL

Appellant
1 for memo of appeal 5000 000
2 Stamp
for power 0200 400
process fee 5000 000
0000
000
5Misc3
I
I 0400
000

Total Rs 10600 400

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this 19 dayof July

iv
y
aE7g
76 AdditionalDistrictJ dge
4 Rohtak Cmgedw heme Cop
6
1
I
l
8 Ll
I

9 Thu Aut5r7
beIi
W
I

S L

l V2 r
1
E E
 ANNEXURE-P3 61
7
ki

H CJD11
344crCcw
ALS
RULE
1 CvL R 41 PROCEDURECODE 1908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABAND
AT HARYANA
CHANENGARH
JUDlClAl DEPARTMENT
C V L
tPPELLAlE SIDE 1
Re9U3

ADl33 N0fi 3
ORDE OPENING SHEET FOP CEVILAPFE Gavl
01
Press
3 Chd
70UT

ORlGNALsun
lnsmuled Decided E
E 5 5

6
I

T Dale 3E 38 S
5
E

Couri Dale Court Conn Court so

Dale I Date ccn 3 8
5
3
l s E 3 5 3
15
E
0 E N
9 O
3

E1qi
J
I o

M
ek L l
I
9 O

5
0

L
K 8 K

L4 SI
1

gB T E 6
K
1
l
G l
v

S G 0
4

A 8 si
4

L
l

l
I

L
Presented g
lanll
if Name of Party
AdvocateorAg
mt filing
lhe appeal

pJelae
dun
Chin and

941

3L
g

g 3 Dg
5

Claun m appe al stating

wl1ellrllc1pj1ais
mm 1 decree or
order
Price eppsai lies
kg 9 3

50 Palsn
 62

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1 That the ld Lower court

Appellate

has committed an
illegality while setting

aside the well reasoned judgment and

decree dated 14052015 passed by the ld

Trial court vide its judgment and decree

dated 19072016 which is illegal

against the law and evidence proved on

record

2 That the background of the case is

that plaintiffrespondent no1 filed the

present suit for declaration challenging

the order dated 18072013 whereby the

appellant was redesignated on the

post of

share clerk and the plaintiff

promotion on this post from 18072013 It

was
stated in the plaint that the

plaintiff was appointed as peon on

10021993 and thereafter his work and

conduct remained satisfactory The Sugar

Mill published notice dated

07062013
a

inviting the applications from its

employees for the post of share clerk The

plaintiffrespondent no1 applied for the

 63

same case
post His was considered amongst

the other candidate and his case was

rejected as his service record was not

found upto the mark as he was suspended

twice and various punishment orders were

passed against him The plaintiff was

claiming on the post being senior in the

seniority list of peon though other

employees including the Cane

KamdarDaftriCentre ChowkidarPeon or

similar equal posts were also eligible who

fulfilled the academic qualification and

experience and the knowledge of computer

3 That the defendant

no2appellant
contested the suit and filed the written

statement taking a plea that the

1

plaintiffrespondent no1 has not come to

the court with clean hands and various

punishment orders were passed against him

Even a letter was sent to the police

regarding which DDR also

registered
was

against the plaintiff Issues were

framed

wherein issue no1 was framed whether the

plaintiff is entitled for the decree for

 64

X
0

declaration alongwith decree of mandatory

injunction as
prayed for The plaintiff
examined Surinder Singh as PW1 and himself

examined PW2 and the

plaintiff
as

tendered certain documents On the other

hand the defendantappellant examined

Rohtash Kumar as DW1 and Jasveer as DW2

and thereafter the evidence

of the

defendant was closed In rebuttal

plaintiff examined Jagjeet as PW3

4 That the ld Trial court

considered that in the public notice dated

07062013 it was mentioned that any

employee who is interested to work on this

post can
apply within 10 days and there

was no
such restriction in the notice that

the employee belonging to a particular

section of the Mill were

only eligible

Whether it is a
general department or

different department the employees of

both the departments were

eligible to

apply for the posts The various orders of

punishment were passed against the

plaintiff like order dated 09062009 was

 65

placed on record as markF whereby one

increment stopped of the

plaintiff
was

vide order dated 09062009 and this order

of punishment is final This punishment

was
imposed upon the plaintiff on the

allegation of absent from duty and

misbehavior with the Incharge and

threatening etc The

operative part of the

punishment order is reproduced as under

Therefore I Rajiv Ahlawat HCS

General Manager Sugar Mill

Meham exercising the powers given
in service rules and byelaws

passed the order to stop one

future annual increment of Suresh

Kumar peon with cumulative

effect and the suspension period

is limited to the

allowance

5 That another punishment order was

also placed on record as MarkE in which

the plaintiff tendered the apology and he

was
given the punishment of warning The
 66

2
operative part of punishment order is

reproduced as under

Therefore I Sanjiv Ahlawat HCS

General Manager Sugar Mill

Meham exercising the powers of

under Service Rules and byelaws

and keeping in view the apology

tendered by the employee pass an

order by giving him

warning
Therefore the charge sheet is

ordered to consigned the record

room
and the amount of suspension
period is ordered to be released

6 That beside the above mentioned

punishments the other orders

relating to the plaintiff were also placed

on was
record wherein the plaintiff

suspended twice and by one order even he

was
reverted to the lower post though

subsequently that order was set aside by

the civil court Thus the case of the

plaintiff was considered by the Selection

Committee and his case was rejected on the

ground of his bad service record For the

 67

perusal of this Honble Court true

translated version of selection

proceedings is reproduced as under

The Meham Cooperative Sugar

Mill Meham District Rohtak

For filling the post of share

clerk

At this time one post of

share clerk is vacant The

following is the qualification for

direct appointment Academic

Graduate preferably BCom

Knowledge of Computer is

necessary Computer Course upto

0 level will be preferred and

for promotion Academic Exp

as

Graduate with 3 yrs Exp Or 10 2

2M Division with 4 yrs Exp Or

Matric Ist Division with 7 years

exp As Cane Kamdar Daftri

Centre Chowkidar Peon or similar

equal posts Knowledge of Computer

is necessary Computer Courseupto

0 level will be preferred

Applications were invited for

 68

filling the post of share clerk

internally vide letter

noMSMEstablishment999 dated

07062013 of this office and the

received
7 All
applications
were

were
called for interview for

27062013 Sh Sukhbir Singh

godown keeper and Sh Narinder Pal

Singh Cane Kamdar did not come

present at the time of interview

and Smt Kamlesh Kumari

appointed
on
the post of Cook on 09021993

and she is working on the post of

Daftri from 23062005 Smt

Kamlesh Kumari is not having 1

Division in matric nor she is

having second division in l02 nor

she is BA pass and therefore

Smt Kamlesh Kumari is not

fulfilling the qualification Rest

of three employees Sh Om

Parkash Sh Suraj Mal and Sh

Jasbir Singh were

working as Cane

clerk Seasonal and all the three

employees joined the duty in the

 69

g
Mill on 01011993 Sh Om Parkash

Cane Clerk has

experience of
no

share section Sh Suraj Mal Cane

Clerk used to be called in the

share section at the

time of

requirement and no such letter was

issued by the ExGeneral managers

that Suraj Mal Cane Clerk had

experience of share clerk Sh

Suresh Kumar joined duty on

10021993 as peon but his

service record was not found

satisfactory as the employee had

been suspended twice and he is

junior to other employees and his

rank is also junior to other

employee and he is also junior

from the date of Sh

joining
Jasbir Singh Cane Clerk seasonal

permanent was appointed on

01011993 on the permanent post

of Cane clerk seasonal Sh Jasbir

Singh is BA Pass and having the

knowledge of Computer The name of

Jasbir Singh is at Sr No23 in

 70

the seniority list of Cane Clerks

Seven seasonal permanent employees

are
senior to Jasbir Singh out of

which only one employee namely Sh

Om Parkash son of Tek Ram

for the post of share clerk but

this employee has no

experience of

share clerk and rest of 6

employees did not deposit the

application form for the post of

share clerk But Sh Jasbir Singh

Cane clerk is working as

share
clerk as per office order

noMSMEstablishment3009 dated

05112005 As per the report of

share section incharge and Chief

Audit Officer the service record

of this employee is found

satisfactory The pay

scale of

Cane Clerk and Share clerk is

same

While keeping in view the

above mentioned facts the

committee recommended to re

designate Sh Jasbir Singh son of

 71

Jage Ram Cane Clerk

Seasonalpermanent on the

permanent post of Share Clerk

Sd Chief Audit Officer

Sd Chief Chemist

Sd Chief Engineer

Sd Cane Manager

Sd Office Superintendent

7 That the appellant was as

cane clerk since 05112005 Two orders

dated 05112005 and 10012006 are

reproduced as under

MSMESTT2009 Dated 51105

Office Order

Sh Jasbir Singh so
Sh Jage

Ram Cane ClerkS will peform his

duties in Share Section with

immediate effect

MSMEstt4961 Dated 100106

Office Order

Sh Jasbir so Shri Jage Ram

Cane Clerk Seasonal is hereby

deputed against the vacant

 72

6
permanent post of Share clerk with

immediate effect till further

orders

8 That the Mill used to fill up the

post on the basis of redesignation as

decided by the Mill The grade of share

clerk and cane clerk are the same and

hence the appellant was redesignated on

the post of Share clerk Various other

officials were
redesignated on various

posts For
instance two orders are

reproduced as under

MSMESTT2834 Dated 21110

Office Order

Sh Krishan Kumar so SH

Ujala Ram Cane Chowkidar

Seasonal is hereby redesignated

on the seasonal permanent post of

Security Guard with immediate

effect All other terms

conditions of his appointment

shall remain unchanged

MSMESTT2835 Dated 21110

 73

9
Office Order

Sh Satyawan so Sh

Surajbhan Juice Maceration

Attendant Seasonabl is hereby

redesignated on the seasonal

permanent post of Security Guard

with immediate effect All other

terms conditions of his

appointment shall remain

unchanged

9 That the ld Trial court

dismissed
the suit while recording a
finding that

the appointment of the appellant is

according to the service rules and no

right of the plaintiff has been infringed

and it not
proved that
was the post of

share clerk is promotional post and the

defendant was duly considered but he was

rejected considering his past conduct and

character vide judgment and decree dated

14052015

10 That the respondent no1

filed
an

appeal against the judgment and decree

 74

passed by the ld Trial court The

respondent no1 raised the issue before

the ld Lower appellate court that the

sugar mill took a stand in the case titled

as
Dhare Singh Vs The Meham Coop that

the department of Cane section is

to the department of share section and

there cannot be any redesignation as per

the above said rules and the service

record of the plaintiff was

quite

satisfactory at the time of order passed

on as
18072013 the punishment order

dated 17062002 was set aside in the

judgment dated 15042004 and the order

dated 09062009 was set aside vide order

dated 21092009 EXPl4

1J That the ld Lower appellate court

relied upon the written statement filed by

the Sugar mill in the case of Dhare that

the post of share clerk is a promotional

post and it cannot be filled up by way of

redesignation and the punishment order

passed against the plaintiff has been set

aside and hence he is entitled for

 75

W
promotion as in the public notice it was

not mentioned by the Sugar mill that this

post be filled upon by way

of
can re

designation and on this basis the ld

Lower appellate court set aside the

judgment and decree passed by the ld

Trial court and a direction has been

further passed to promote the plaintiff

from 18072013

12 That the ld Lower appellate court

committed an illegality while ignoring the

punishment order MarkE dated

as
under that charge sheet the plaintiff
has been suspended and the charge sheet

has been issued and the regular enquiry

was
pending and it cannot be said that the

service record of the plaintiff is upto

the mark Further the ld Lower appellate

court also committed an illegality while

recording a finding that the post of share

clerk could only be filled up by way of

promotion and not by way of re

designation When this notice was issued

and all the employees working in the mill

 76

52
were an
given opportunity to be considered

then it was a case of appointment by way

of direct recruitment though amongst the

sugar mill employee and this post

wasnot
advertised for filling the same on

promotion basis

13 That the written statement filed

in the suit of Dhare has wrongly relied

upon by the ld Lower appellate court

as

the
qualification for this post was

revised on 05092007 The appellant was

redesignated on the post of Share clerk

as no
other candidate was found suitable

for appointment of that post and hence the

appointment of the appellant by way of re

designation cannot be declared as

illegal
Ex P16 is a report of the Committee in

which it was held that if a

particular

post there is no suitable person on the

post of clerk in particular section

a

then the clerk of the different section

can be adjusted on the post of clerk in

the separate department For the perusal

 77

92
of this Honble High Court relevant

version of ExP16 is reproduced as under

The report of the committee

constituted as per resolution

No11 of the Meeting of the Board

of Directors dated 16112010 is

as
under

11 The seniority list of clerk in

all departments of the mill is

separate and their promotion

is made the
basis of
on

seniority in that very

department

2 When the management considered

that it is necessary to do

that for a
particular post

nobody has a claim and it is

the mill
in the interest of

then in that situation a

clerk different
of department
if fulfill the necessary

qualification can be adjusted

on
that post
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sd 16022011
 78

4
Chief Audit Officer
Sugar Mill Meham
Sd Audit Officer
Office Addl Deputy
Commissioner
DRD A Rohtak

14 That the ld Lower

appellate court

has committed an
illegality while not

considering ExP16 wherein a

provision
was
made to appoint an employee of

different section if no other person is

found suitable for that post In the

present case
also the plaintiff was not

having the good service record and he was

not suitable and hence the employees of

other section were considered and the post

was up
filled by way of redesignation and

servicerules
it was not contrary to the

Thus the impugned judgment and decree

passed by the ld Lower

appellate court is

null and void as such the same is liable

to be set aside

15 That the ld Lower

appellate court

committed an
illegality while giving a

direction to appoint the plaintiff on the

 79

post of share clerk with retrospective

date when his service record was
not

satisfactory Thus the same is liable to

be reversed

16 That the following substantial

questions of law are involved in the

case

iV Whether
the findings recorded

by the ld Lower
appellate
court are
perverse

ii Whether a direction can be

issued to promote any employee

whose not
service record
is
satisfactory

iii Whether any employee has any

fundamental right of promotion

when his case has considered

and rejected on the ground of

bad service record

17 That no such or similar appeal has

earlier been filed by the appellant either

before this Honble Court or in the

Honble Supreme Court of India

 80

It is therefore respectfully

prayed that present appeal may kindly be

allowed and the impugned judgment and

decree dated 19072016 passed by the ld

Lower appellate court may kindly be set

aside and judgment and decree dated

14052015 passed by ld Trial court may

kindly be upheld in the interest of

justice

It is further prayed that

exemption may kindly be granted from

filing typed copy of judgment and decree

passed by ld appellate court and from

filing certifiedtyped copies of grounds

of appeal filed before ld Lower appellate

court and copy of impugned judgment and

decree passed by the ld trial court in

the interest of justice

Place
nJ
Chandigarh AMESH HOODA
Dated 16082016 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
 81

X7

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1303
RSA No or 2016

Jasbir Singh Appellant

Versus

Suresh Kumar ampAnr

Respondents

Affidavit of Jasbir Singh

so Sh Jage Ram working

as
Share Clerk in the

Meham Cooperative Sugar

Mills Ltd Meham

District Rohtak resident

of village Madina

District Rohtak

751 the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare as under

1 That the appellant is filing the

present appeal against the impugned

judgment and decree dated 19072016

before this Honble Court the contents of

the appeal may kindly be read as

part and

parcel of the present affidavit

 82
t

2 That the deponent declares that

the contents of the accompanying appeal

are
true and correct to his knowledge

3 That no such or similar appeal has

earlier been filed by the appellant either

before this Honble Court or in the

Honble Supreme Court of India

Place
Dated Chandigarh
16082016 Deponent

3 if9gfb 7
VERIFICATION

Verified arethat true

the contents
and correctof my toabovemy
k kdpwledge No part of it is false and
50
1
t

nothing has been concealed therein

Sk2v2
Deponent
9
 83

2
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA
Not3o3 or 2016

In CA 91 of 20152016
MEMO OF PARTIES

Jasbir Singh so Sh Jage Ram working as

Share Clerk in the Meham Cooperative Sugar

Mills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

resident of village Madina District

Rohtak

Appellantdefendant no2

Versus

1 Suresh Kumar so Ram

Chander working
as
Peon under the Managing Director

The Meham Sugar Mills Ltd

Meham District Rohtak resident of

Village Kharkara Tehsil Meham

District Rohtak

uRespondentplaintiff

2 The Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills

Ltd Meham through its Managing

Director

Respondentdefendant no1

Place Chandigarh HOODA

Dated 16082016 ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
 84
ANNEXURE-P4
 TRUE TRANSALTED COPY
85

The Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Meham (Rohtak), Haryana - 124112

Ref No: /2024/372 Dated: 19.06.24

To,

Mr. Suresh Kumar,

Share Clerk

Subject: Notice

You are hereby informed that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the
case of Shri Jasbir Singh vs. Ganna Clerk (Seasonal Post), under RSA No. 4303-
2016 and RSA-5216-2017, has upheld the appeal. The Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, on 8.5.2024, has given the decision in favor of Shri Jasbir
Singh.

Therefore, in compliance with the Hon’ble High Court's decision, you are asked
to show cause why you should not be demoted from the position of Share Clerk.
If you wish to make any representation regarding the aforementioned subject,
please submit your written statement in this office within three days from the
receipt of this notice, Otherwise, further proceedings will be undertaken in
compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Yours sincerely,

(Managing Director)
 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

Jasbir Singh & Anr. …Respondents

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED

COPIES OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER & JUDGEMENT & OTHER

ANNEXED DOCUMENTS WITH SLP.

TO,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioners/Applicants above-named have filed the

accompanying Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal under Article

136 of the Constitution of India against the final judgement and order

dated 08.05.2024 passed by Ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court in RSA No. 4303/2016, whereby the Hon’ble High Court allowed the

appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging the judgment dated

 87

19.07.2016 passed by the Ld. 1st appellate Court in Civil appeal No.

91/2016.

2. That the contents of the accompanying petition are not repeated herein

for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of this

application as well.

3. That, due to paucity of time and the urgency in filing of the present

Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner has been unable to obtain the

certified copies of the annexures and therefore, pray for exemption from

this Hon’ble Court from filing certified copies of the annexures.

4. That the petitioner has filed the instant application bona-fide and in the

interest of justice.

PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to: -

a) Grant exemption to the Petitioner from filing certified copies of

Impugned final order & Judgement and Annexures filed along with

the Special leave Petition;

b) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS/

APPLICANTS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn By: Nishant Khatri

Drawn On: 24.06.2024 Filed By:

Filed On: 27.06.2024 (Advocate for the Petitioner)
 88

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
[ORDER XXIRULE 3(1)(a) of S.C. Rules 20131
[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indial
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus
Jasbir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Pradeep Yadav, aged around 52 years R/o Village

Kharkara, Tehsil Meham, District-Rohtak, Haryana -125 121, presently at

New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. Iam a citizen of India and Petitioner in the above-named petition, and

as suchIam fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case and Iam competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying 1.A. application seeking exemption from

filling certified copies of Inpugned final order & Judgement and
annexures has been drafted by my advocate on my instructions and I

have gone through the same and I state that the contents of the same

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

HANDRA DEPONENT
KAMS NDIA
DELAI
i6924
-yate
OVT. OF INC
14-02-2025
 89

VERIFICATION: Verified at NexDthi on 24.Ö6.2024 that the contents

of the affidavit is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and no
Dopenen

thereof is false and no material has been concealed there from.

Presence

Exeoutar

my

Slgned
h o

CERTLF 5D I ME CONTENTS EPLAMED TO THE

OS S86OEYTD DEPONENT
ldentify

hes
EPQNENT EXECJUNTDDNHSAIH
I
Nho
UOERSDND AFAMED &

9TARL SAGNED W PRESEN

(29/9/14
Reg No. 16924
KAMLESHCHANDRA 9MESH CHANOATRocate
1RIPATH!
ARE .OELA!
Pe.) 6924

Covt.
EçryDaie
14-02-2025
OF IN

9 N 20?4
 90

2
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA
Not3o3 or 2016

In CA 91 of 20152016
MEMO OF PARTIES

Jasbir Singh so Sh Jage Ram working as

Share Clerk in the Meham Cooperative Sugar

Mills Ltd Meham District Rohtak

resident of village Madina District

Rohtak

Appellantdefendant no2

Versus

1 Suresh Kumar so Ram Chander working

as
Peon under the Managing Director

The Meham Sugar Mills Ltd

Meham District Rohtak resident of

Village Kharkara Tehsil Meham

District Rohtak

uRespondentplaintiff

2 The Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills

Ltd Meham through its Managing

Director

Respondentdefendant no1

Anil Kumar Pandey

2016.08.26 16:32
Place Chandigarh HOODA
TRUE SCANNED COPY OF
ORIGINAL Dated 16082016 ADVOCATE
PHHC CHANDIGARH
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT