1 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJAPUNJAPUNJAPUNJAABABABAB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGAARHARHARHARH 109 RSARSARSARSA No.2No.No.No.2624262426242624 ofofofof 1998199819981998 (O&M)(O&M)(O&M)(O&M) DateDateDateDate ofofofof DDDecision:Decision:DDDecision:Decision: 0202.0.0.0.07.2020202 .2026.202.202 BALWANTBALWANTBALWANTBALWANT SINSINSINSINNGHNGHNGHNGH (SINCE(SINCE(SINCE(SINCE DECEASED)DECEASED)DECEASED)DECEASED) THTHTHTH.... HISHISHISHIS LRS......LRSLRSLRS......Appellant............Appellant(s)AppellantAppellant(s)(s)(s) VsVsVsVs THETHETHETHE PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJAB SSTATESSTATESSTATESSTATE ELECTRICITYELECTRICITYELECTRICITYELECTRICITY BOARDBOARDBOARDBOARDD,D,D,D, PATIALAPATIALAPATIALAPATIALA ANDANDANDAND ORS.ORS.ORS.ORS. ....Respondent(s)....Respondent....Respondent....Respondent CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HONHONHONHONN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEMR.MR.MR.MR.JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHHHHMANUJAMANUJMANUJMANUJ Present: Mr . Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr . R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents (through video--conferencing). ****

HARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHMAMAMAMAANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,J.J.J.J.(Oral)(Oral)(Oral)(Oral) Thee appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are inn appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff-Balwannt Singh (now deceased) wass also dismissed by the learnned Additional Distrrict Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinaftehereinaftehereinaftehereinafteererererreferredreferredreferredreferredtotototoasasasasthethethethe“First“First“First“FirstAppellAppellAppellAppellllatellatellatellate Court”).Court”Court”Court” For thee sake of convenience, the partiees are being referred to as per thheir status in the Civvil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challennge has been laid to the judgmeents and decrees dateed 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 ppassed by the learned Courts beloow, whereby the ddismissal of suit for declaratiion with consequential relief of mandatory injunnction filed at the instance of the plaintiff-Balwant Singh (nnow deceased) was aaffirmed. FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS [3]. Briiefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab Sttate Electricity Boarrd; posted as Assistant Linemaan at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. TheT plaintiff made aan application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalanddhar MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M)

Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideraation of his domestic conditions, the prayer of his ttransfer was allowed vide ordder dated 07.08.1991. Thereaffter, plaintiff was reliieved from Jalandhar Circle on 330.08.1991 and was directed to joinj at Gurdaspur CCircle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assisttant Lineman joineed at his place at Jalan dhar and he approached the respondents/defefendants for permitting him to jjoin at Gurdaspur, but all in vaain. Even notice dated 10.09.1991 (Ex.P-4) was also served upon the respondents/defefendants by the plaintiff seekking his re-joining at Gurdasppur, however, the sa me was never responded to, hennce, the present suit for declarattion to the effect thatt the appellant/plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now deceased) was entittled to full pay incluuding all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his transfer w.e.f. 330.08.1991 till the date he was allowed to re-join at the placee of posting as well as seeking mandatory injunctionn for directing defendants to alllow the plaintiff to jooin duty as Assistant Lineman.

[4]. Upoon notice, respondents/defendaant(s) appeared and filed writtten statement admit ting the plaintiff to be regular emmployee of Punjab State Electriccity Board and he wwas working as Assistant Linemman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle anda was transferred to Gurdaspur Circle. It was pleeaded that vide office order No.4492 dated 30.09.19991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his duty intentionallly and deliberately. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff wasw only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, DDina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vvacancy at those stations, plaiintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur SSahib, however, he failed to joinn his duty. Replication was filedd at the instance of thhe plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of thee parties, the learned Trial Coourt framed the folloowing issues:- MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) “1. Whetherthe plaintiff is entitlled to the declaration as prayed for?f OPP 2. Relief.”

[6]. Thee learned Civil Judge (Junior D ivision), Gurdaspur, (hereinafterhereinafterhereinafterhereinaftererererer totototo bebebebe referredreferredreferredreferred totototo asasasasssss thethethethe “trial“trial“trial“trial Court”),Court”Court”Court” vide its judggment and decree dated 20.03.19996, dismissed the suuit with costs filed at the instancee of plaintiff. [7]. Agggrieved thereof, the plaintiff fileed the first appeal, which was alsoa dismissed vide jjudgment and decree dated 12.006.1998 passed by the learned FirstF Appellate Courtt. Hence, the present Regular Seecond Appeal. CONTENTIONCONTENTIONCONTENTIONCONTENTIONN(S):N(S)N(S)N(S) ONONONON BEHALFBEHALFBEHALFBEHALF OOOOFOFFF THETHETHETHE APPELLANT(S)-PLAINAPPELLANT(S)APPELLANT(S)APPELLANT(S) PLAINPLAINPLAINNTIFF(S):NTIFF(S)NTIFF(S)NTIFF(S)

[8]. Imppugning the aforementioned juddgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, leearned counsel for the appellantt(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondeents/defendants in the written sstatement was to the effect thatt in terms of office oorder No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to joinn at Sri Hargobindpuur Sahib, however no such ord er was ever served upon him and,a thus adverse infeference was required to be drawnn against the defendants. [8.1]. Leaarned counsel further submits thhat the respondents/defendants evven failed to responnd to any of the legal notices sserved upon them by the plainttiff, whereby he rep eatedly requested the respondennts/defendants to make him joinn as Assistant Linemman at Gurdaspur in terms of thee relieving order dated 30.08.19991. Learned counsell thus, submits that the impugneed judgments and decrees passedd by the learned Couurts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of the pplaintiff was to be decreed. MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) ONONONON BEHALFBEHALFBEHALFBEHALF OOFOOFOOFOOF THETHETHETHE RESPONDENT(S)-DEFRESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT(S) DEFDEFDEFFENDANT(S):FENDANT(S)FENDANT(S)FENDANT(S)

[9]. On the other hand, learn ed counsel representing the respondents/defefendants submits that the plea taaken in the written statement withw respect to the ooffice order No.492 dated 30.099.1991 was duly proved on reccord through the ddeposition made by DW-1, namely, Om Parkash, Offfice Superintendent from the office of XEN (Execuutive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, videv which the plainttiff was asked to join his duty aat Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learnned counsel thus, suubmits that the impugned judggments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings anda evidence availabble on record, warranting no innterference and accordingly prayyed for dismissal of the present appeal. DISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION AANDAANDAANDAAND REASONING:REASONING:REASONING:REASONING: [10]. I hhave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as wwell as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s).

[11]. Thee only defence taken by the resspondents/defendants in the writtten statement was tto the effect that the office ordder No.492 dated 30.09.1991 wasw passed, wherebyy the plaintiff was directed too join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahhib, however strangeely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the reespondents/defendants. In such ccircumstances, mere oral deposittion made by DW-11 Om Parkash, Office Superinntendent from the office of XENX (Executive Enggineer), PSEB, Batala, about ppassing of any office order daated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreovver, upon a perusal of the recordd, it can nowhere be found that any such office orderr was ever served upon the plainttiff, thereby directinng him to join at Sri Hargoobindpur Sahib. In addition, the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) respondents/defefendants did not even responnded to the legal notice daated 10.09.1994 (Ex..P-4) served upon them by the pplaintiff, whereby request was made for permitting hhim to re-join the respondent-Deepartment at Gurdaspur in termss of his relieving ordder dated 30.08.1991.

[12]. Furrther, a perusal of the judgmentss and decrees passed by the learnned Courts below goes on to show thaat the approach adopted by respondents/defefendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental expositionn of law laid down bby the Hon’ble Apex Court in caase of ‘GopalGopalGopalGopal KrishnaKrishnaKrishnaKrishna JiJiJiJi KetkarKKK tkartkartkarVs.Vs.Vs.Vs. Mohd.Mohd.Mohd.Mohd. HaziHaziHaziHazi LatLatLatLattitititif andandandand others,others,others,others, reported as AIRAIRAIRAIR 11196819681119681968 SCSCSCSC 1413141314131413 wherein it was heldh that the party inn possession of best evidence neeeds to be produce the same beffore the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inferennce needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grieevance expressed by the plaintifff in his suit to the eeffect that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries meritm especially in thhe absence of any substantial pproof regarding office order daated 30.09.1991 has been served upon him. The reelevant portion of Gopal Krishnna’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder:-

“………..But the appellant has not prododuced either his own accounts orr the acccount of the Dargah to show as to hhow the income fromplot No. 134wasw deaalt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part off the apppellant's duty to produce the accounnts unless he was called upon to dodo so andd the onus we. upon the respondennts to prove the case and to show thatt the Dargah was the owner of plot NNo. 134. WeWeWeWe areareareare unableunableunableunable totototo acceptacceptacceptacceptthis argugument as correct. Even if the burdeden of proof does not lie on a partyy the Couurt may draw an adverse inferencee if he withholds important documements in hhis possession which can throw lighght on the facts at issue. It is not,ininininnnnnourourourour opinopinopinopininion,inion,inion,inion, aaaasound practice for those dedesiring to rely upon a certain statete of factcts to withhold from the Court tthe best evidence which is in theirth posssession which could throw light uupon the issues in controversy andd to relyy upon the abstract doctrine of onnus of proof. InMurugesamMurugesamMurugesamMurugesam PillaPillaPillaPillaaiaiaiai v.v.v.v. GnaGnaGnaGnanananananananana SambandhaSambandhaSambandhaSambandha PandaraPandaraPandaraPandara SannadhiSannadhiSannadhiSannadhii,i,i,i, 44444444 IndIndIndInd AppAppAppApp 98989898 atatatat p.p.p.p. 103103103103Lord Shhaw obsservedas follows:

"A practice has ggrown up in Indian procedure of thhose in possession of imporrtant documents or information lyying by, trusting to the abstrract doctrine of he onus of proof, and MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) failing. accordingly, to ffurnish to the Courts the best mateerial for its decision With reggard to third parties, this may be rightri enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct off the suit but with regard too the parties thee suit it is, in theirth Lordships' opinion, an iinversion of sound practice for thhose desiring to rely upon a ccertain state of facts to withhold fromfr the Court the written evidence in their possession whhich wouldthrowlight upon theproposition." [13]. As a result of aforesaid discussionn, the judgments and decrees daated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the leaarned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit foor declaration filed at the instancce of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for aall his service dues including payp fixation, arrearss, pension, benefits towards seniiority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he wasw made to rejoin iin terms of the order dated 09.002.1999 passed by this Court in the present appeal. TThe plaintiff shall also be entitleed for interest @ 6% per annumm on the dues payablee to him. Decree sheet be prepareed accordingly.

[14]. Apppeal stands allowed in thee aforesaid terms. All pendding application(s), iff any, shall also stand disposed oof. (HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA) JulyJulyJulyJuly 02,020202,,, 2026202202202 JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE Atik Wheether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wheether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

1 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJAPUNJAPUNJAPUNJAABABABAB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGACHANDIGAARHARHARHARH 109 RSARSARSARSA No.2No.No.No.2624262426242624 ofofofof 1998199819981998 (O&M)(O&M)(O&M)(O&M) DateDateDateDate ofofofof DDDecision:Decision:DDDecision:Decision: 0202.0.0.0.07.2020202 .2026.202.202 BALWANTBALWANTBALWANTBALWANT SINSINSINSINNGHNGHNGHNGH (SINCE(SINCE(SINCE(SINCE DECEASED)DECEASED)DECEASED)DECEASED) THTHTHTH.... HISHISHISHIS LRS......LRSLRSLRS......Appellant............Appellant(s)AppellantAppellant(s)(s)(s) VsVsVsVs THETHETHETHE PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJAB SSTATESSTATESSTATESSTATE ELECTRICITYELECTRICITYELECTRICITYELECTRICITY BOARDBOARDBOARDBOARDD,D,D,D, PATIALAPATIALAPATIALAPATIALA ANDANDANDAND ORS.ORS.ORS.ORS. ....Respondent(s)....Respondent....Respondent....Respondent CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HONHONHONHONN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEN'BLEMR.MR.MR.MR.JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHHHHMANUJAMANUJMANUJMANUJ Present: Mr . Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr . R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents (through video--conferencing). ****

HARKESHHARKESHHARKESHHARKESHMAMAMAMAANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,ANUJA,J.J.J.J.(Oral)(Oral)(Oral)(Oral) Thee appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are inn appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff-Balwannt Singh (now deceased) wass also dismissed by the learnned Additional Distrrict Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinaftehereinaftehereinaftehereinafteererererreferredreferredreferredreferredtotototoasasasasthethethethe“First“First“First“FirstAppellAppellAppellAppellllatellatellatellate Court”).Court”Court”Court” For thee sake of convenience, the partiees are being referred to as per thheir status in the Civvil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challennge has been laid to the judgmeents and decrees dateed 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 ppassed by the learned Courts beloow, whereby the ddismissal of suit for declaratiion with consequential relief of mandatory injunnction filed at the instance of the plaintiff-Balwant Singh (nnow deceased) was aaffirmed. FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS [3]. Briiefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab Sttate Electricity Boarrd; posted as Assistant Linemaan at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. TheT plaintiff made aan application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalanddhar MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M)

Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideraation of his domestic conditions, the prayer of his ttransfer was allowed vide ordder dated 07.08.1991. Thereaffter, plaintiff was reliieved from Jalandhar Circle on 330.08.1991 and was directed to joinj at Gurdaspur CCircle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assisttant Lineman joineed at his place at Jalan dhar and he approached the respondents/defefendants for permitting him to jjoin at Gurdaspur, but all in vaain. Even notice dated 10.09.1991 (Ex.P-4) was also served upon the respondents/defefendants by the plaintiff seekking his re-joining at Gurdasppur, however, the sa me was never responded to, hennce, the present suit for declarattion to the effect thatt the appellant/plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now deceased) was entittled to full pay incluuding all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his transfer w.e.f. 330.08.1991 till the date he was allowed to re-join at the placee of posting as well as seeking mandatory injunctionn for directing defendants to alllow the plaintiff to jooin duty as Assistant Lineman.

[4]. Upoon notice, respondents/defendaant(s) appeared and filed writtten statement admit ting the plaintiff to be regular emmployee of Punjab State Electriccity Board and he wwas working as Assistant Linemman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle anda was transferred to Gurdaspur Circle. It was pleeaded that vide office order No.4492 dated 30.09.19991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his duty intentionallly and deliberately. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff wasw only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, DDina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vvacancy at those stations, plaiintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur SSahib, however, he failed to joinn his duty. Replication was filedd at the instance of thhe plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of thee parties, the learned Trial Coourt framed the folloowing issues:- MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) “1. Whetherthe plaintiff is entitlled to the declaration as prayed for?f OPP 2. Relief.”

[6]. Thee learned Civil Judge (Junior D ivision), Gurdaspur, (hereinafterhereinafterhereinafterhereinaftererererer totototo bebebebe referredreferredreferredreferred totototo asasasasssss thethethethe “trial“trial“trial“trial Court”),Court”Court”Court” vide its judggment and decree dated 20.03.19996, dismissed the suuit with costs filed at the instancee of plaintiff. [7]. Agggrieved thereof, the plaintiff fileed the first appeal, which was alsoa dismissed vide jjudgment and decree dated 12.006.1998 passed by the learned FirstF Appellate Courtt. Hence, the present Regular Seecond Appeal. CONTENTIONCONTENTIONCONTENTIONCONTENTIONN(S):N(S)N(S)N(S) ONONONON BEHALFBEHALFBEHALFBEHALF OOOOFOFFF THETHETHETHE APPELLANT(S)-PLAINAPPELLANT(S)APPELLANT(S)APPELLANT(S) PLAINPLAINPLAINNTIFF(S):NTIFF(S)NTIFF(S)NTIFF(S)

[8]. Imppugning the aforementioned juddgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, leearned counsel for the appellantt(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondeents/defendants in the written sstatement was to the effect thatt in terms of office oorder No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to joinn at Sri Hargobindpuur Sahib, however no such ord er was ever served upon him and,a thus adverse infeference was required to be drawnn against the defendants. [8.1]. Leaarned counsel further submits thhat the respondents/defendants evven failed to responnd to any of the legal notices sserved upon them by the plainttiff, whereby he rep eatedly requested the respondennts/defendants to make him joinn as Assistant Linemman at Gurdaspur in terms of thee relieving order dated 30.08.19991. Learned counsell thus, submits that the impugneed judgments and decrees passedd by the learned Couurts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of the pplaintiff was to be decreed. MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) ONONONON BEHALFBEHALFBEHALFBEHALF OOFOOFOOFOOF THETHETHETHE RESPONDENT(S)-DEFRESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT(S) DEFDEFDEFFENDANT(S):FENDANT(S)FENDANT(S)FENDANT(S)

[9]. On the other hand, learn ed counsel representing the respondents/defefendants submits that the plea taaken in the written statement withw respect to the ooffice order No.492 dated 30.099.1991 was duly proved on reccord through the ddeposition made by DW-1, namely, Om Parkash, Offfice Superintendent from the office of XEN (Execuutive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, videv which the plainttiff was asked to join his duty aat Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learnned counsel thus, suubmits that the impugned judggments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings anda evidence availabble on record, warranting no innterference and accordingly prayyed for dismissal of the present appeal. DISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION AANDAANDAANDAAND REASONING:REASONING:REASONING:REASONING: [10]. I hhave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as wwell as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s).

[11]. Thee only defence taken by the resspondents/defendants in the writtten statement was tto the effect that the office ordder No.492 dated 30.09.1991 wasw passed, wherebyy the plaintiff was directed too join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahhib, however strangeely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the reespondents/defendants. In such ccircumstances, mere oral deposittion made by DW-11 Om Parkash, Office Superinntendent from the office of XENX (Executive Enggineer), PSEB, Batala, about ppassing of any office order daated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreovver, upon a perusal of the recordd, it can nowhere be found that any such office orderr was ever served upon the plainttiff, thereby directinng him to join at Sri Hargoobindpur Sahib. In addition, the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) respondents/defefendants did not even responnded to the legal notice daated 10.09.1994 (Ex..P-4) served upon them by the pplaintiff, whereby request was made for permitting hhim to re-join the respondent-Deepartment at Gurdaspur in termss of his relieving ordder dated 30.08.1991.

[12]. Furrther, a perusal of the judgmentss and decrees passed by the learnned Courts below goes on to show thaat the approach adopted by respondents/defefendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental expositionn of law laid down bby the Hon’ble Apex Court in caase of ‘GopalGopalGopalGopal KrishnaKrishnaKrishnaKrishna JiJiJiJi KetkarKKK tkartkartkarVs.Vs.Vs.Vs. Mohd.Mohd.Mohd.Mohd. HaziHaziHaziHazi LatLatLatLattitititif andandandand others,others,others,others, reported as AIRAIRAIRAIR 11196819681119681968 SCSCSCSC 1413141314131413 wherein it was heldh that the party inn possession of best evidence neeeds to be produce the same beffore the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inferennce needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grieevance expressed by the plaintifff in his suit to the eeffect that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries meritm especially in thhe absence of any substantial pproof regarding office order daated 30.09.1991 has been served upon him. The reelevant portion of Gopal Krishnna’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder:-

“………..But the appellant has not prododuced either his own accounts orr the acccount of the Dargah to show as to hhow the income fromplot No. 134wasw deaalt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part off the apppellant's duty to produce the accounnts unless he was called upon to dodo so andd the onus we. upon the respondennts to prove the case and to show thatt the Dargah was the owner of plot NNo. 134. WeWeWeWe areareareare unableunableunableunable totototo acceptacceptacceptacceptthis argugument as correct. Even if the burdeden of proof does not lie on a partyy the Couurt may draw an adverse inferencee if he withholds important documements in hhis possession which can throw lighght on the facts at issue. It is not,ininininnnnnourourourour opinopinopinopininion,inion,inion,inion, aaaasound practice for those dedesiring to rely upon a certain statete of factcts to withhold from the Court tthe best evidence which is in theirth posssession which could throw light uupon the issues in controversy andd to relyy upon the abstract doctrine of onnus of proof. InMurugesamMurugesamMurugesamMurugesam PillaPillaPillaPillaaiaiaiai v.v.v.v. GnaGnaGnaGnanananananananana SambandhaSambandhaSambandhaSambandha PandaraPandaraPandaraPandara SannadhiSannadhiSannadhiSannadhii,i,i,i, 44444444 IndIndIndInd AppAppAppApp 98989898 atatatat p.p.p.p. 103103103103Lord Shhaw obsservedas follows:

"A practice has ggrown up in Indian procedure of thhose in possession of imporrtant documents or information lyying by, trusting to the abstrract doctrine of he onus of proof, and MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 RSA No.2624 of 19998 (O&M) failing. accordingly, to ffurnish to the Courts the best mateerial for its decision With reggard to third parties, this may be rightri enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct off the suit but with regard too the parties thee suit it is, in theirth Lordships' opinion, an iinversion of sound practice for thhose desiring to rely upon a ccertain state of facts to withhold fromfr the Court the written evidence in their possession whhich wouldthrowlight upon theproposition." [13]. As a result of aforesaid discussionn, the judgments and decrees daated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the leaarned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit foor declaration filed at the instancce of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for aall his service dues including payp fixation, arrearss, pension, benefits towards seniiority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he wasw made to rejoin iin terms of the order dated 09.002.1999 passed by this Court in the present appeal. TThe plaintiff shall also be entitleed for interest @ 6% per annumm on the dues payablee to him. Decree sheet be prepareed accordingly.

[14]. Apppeal stands allowed in thee aforesaid terms. All pendding application(s), iff any, shall also stand disposed oof. (HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH(HARKESH MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA)MANUJA) JulyJulyJulyJuly 02,020202,,, 2026202202202 JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE Atik Wheether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wheether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment