Judgment R.S.Madan, J. 1. These two Regular Second Appeals No. 1646 of 1984 and 1866 of 1984 have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad on 4.2.1984 vide which he disposed of two Civil Appeals No. 190 of 1982, titled as Sultan Singh v. Ram Gopal and another and Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1982, titled as Ram Gopal v. Municipal Committee, Paiwal and another, whereby the appeal filed by Sultan Singh was accepted and the order of appointment of the appellant Sultan Singh as Octroi Superintendent was held to be legal and thus the suit of the plaintiff was partly upheld, whereas the remaining relief of recovery of Rs. 996/- claimed by the plaintiff was upheld. However, an appeal filed by Ram Gopal appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff Ram Gopal had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is senior to defendant No. 2, Sultan Singh and the order of promotion of defendant No. 2 dated 11.7.1989 whereby he was promoted as Octroi Superintendent is illegal, void ab initio and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the order of punishment dated 11.10.1974 is illegal, unlawful and inoperative and for the recovery of Rs. 2500/- as arrears of pay was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as Octroi Moharrir on 21.7.1963 and during this period he was promoted as Octroi Inspector and Octroi Superintendent etc. The plaintiff was promoted as Octroi Inspector on 26.10.1976 and worked upto 16.10.1977. He was reverted thereafter to the post of Octroi Moharrir. The plaintiff was again promoted as Octroi Inspector on 12.9.1978 but he continued to draw the salary of the Octroi Moharrir in the pay scale of Rs. 110/-. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Sultan Singh were promoted as Octroi Inspector on 12.9.1978. The post of Octroi Inspector carries the pay scale of Rs. 150/- whereas the plaintiff was paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 110/- for the period from 26.10.1976 to 16.10.1977 when he worked as Octroi Inspector. The post of Octroi Inspector and Vehicle Inspector in the Municipal Committee are interchangeable and it carried the pay scale of Rs. 120/-. 150/- whereas the plaintiff was paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 110/- for the period from 26.10.1976 to 16.10.1977 when he worked as Octroi Inspector. The post of Octroi Inspector and Vehicle Inspector in the Municipal Committee are interchangeable and it carried the pay scale of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff thus prayed that he was paid less salary and was deprived of other allowances, increments etc. Therefore, he claimed that he is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 2500/-. It is further the case of the plaintiff that while working as Octroi Moharrir, he was punished vide order dated 11.10.1974 vide which his 11 years service was forfeited. On appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order of forfeiture of service the order was modified and the plaintiff was awarded the forfeiture of four years service vide order dated 1.1.1975. According to the plaintiff, the order of forfeiture of past service of the plaintiff-appellant is illegal as punishment of forfeiture of service is foreign to the Punjab Civil Service Appeal and Punishment Rules, 1952. The order of punishment, however, was not implemented by the Municipal Committee so the plaintiff did not initiate any action to get the order of punishment set aside either by filing of a civil suit or before the competent authority. The plaintiff was, however, promoted along with defendant No. 2 as Octroi Inspector despite of the punishment continuing to exist in his record. After promotion to the post of Octroi Inspector the order of punishment ceases to operate. In view of the order dated 12.9.1978 the plaintiff-appellant joined as Octroi Inspector on 14.9.1978 whereas the defendant No. 2 joined on 15.9.1978. 4. The main grievance of the plaintiff is the order dated 12.10.1979 vide which the defendant-respondent Sultan Singh was appointed as Octroi Superintendent ignoring the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that he is senior to defendant No. 2, therefore, his claim to the promotion to the post of Octroi Superintendent was ignored and respondent No. 2 has been wrongly promoted being junior to the plaintiff. After serving due notice the present suit was filed. 5. Upon notice two separate written statements were filed one by defendant No. 1 and the other by defendant No. 2. After serving due notice the present suit was filed. 5. Upon notice two separate written statements were filed one by defendant No. 1 and the other by defendant No. 2. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 it was pleaded inter alia by way of preliminary objection regarding the locus standi, maintainability, misjoinder of cause of action and not valuing the suit properly for the Court fee and jurisdiction. Further, the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct. However, it was admitted that both plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were promoted as Octroi Inspector on the same date vide order dated 12.9.78. 6. It was pleaded by the Municipal Committee that the plaintiff has worked as Octroi Inspector during the period of leave of Lachhman Dass as stop gap arrangement and on his resumption of duties the plaintiff was reverted to his original post of Octroi Moharrir. Lachhman Dass was, however, again reverted as Clerk on 9.8.77. It is alleged that the past service of the plaintiff were forfeited and the order of forfeiture of service are legal and has attained the finality. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot challenge the order of punishment through the present suit. It was due to forfeiture of the service of plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 was found senior to the plaintiff and, therefore, he was promoted to the post of Octroi Superintendent. With these pleas, the Municipal Committee justified the promotion of defendant No. 2 as Octroi Superintendent and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 7. Replication was filed controverting the averments made in the written statement and re-affirmed the case as set up in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the order dated 11.10.74 and 1.1.75 passed respectively by the appointing authority and appellate authority are null and void and illegal as alleged in para No. 11 of the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the order dated 11.7.79 passed by defendant No. 1 promoting the defendant No. 2 to the post of Octroi Superintendent is illegal and void ab initio ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2500/- from defendant No. 1 as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD-1. 5. OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2500/- from defendant No. 1 as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD-1. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit ? OPD-1. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD-1. 7. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action ? OPD-1. 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD-1. 9. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD. 10. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD-1. 11. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 ? OPD-2. 12. Relief. 8. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. 9. After evaluating the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court returned the finding of issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. The finding of issue No. 2 which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the learned Sub-Judge but was set aside and modified by the First Appellate Court in favour of the defendant No. 2. The finding of issue Nos. 3 and 4 was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The findings of issue Nos. 5-7 and 9-11 were not pressed before the trial Court as well as before the Appellate Court. Therefore, their findings were affirmed. While disposing of issue No. 8 the claim of the petitioner with respect to setting aside the orders dated 11.10.74 and 1.1.75 with respect to punishment awarded to the appellant by the competent authority was held to be time-barred. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties namely Shri Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Sh. Arun Jain, counsel for the respondent. 11. It is not disputed that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties namely Shri Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Sh. Arun Jain, counsel for the respondent. 11. It is not disputed that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The only point raised before this Court is that learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court while disposing of issue No. 1 interpreted Rule 4(III) of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 that it amounts to reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale as one of the penalties imposed on the member of the service which are covered under Rule 4(III) of the said Rules. According to the learned counsel the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Shri Krishan Das reported in (1950-1988) Recent Services Judgments (sic) while taking into consideration the various factors interpreted the word forfeiture as under :- "A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the Government servant has right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequence." 12. According to this decision, reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311(2) means reduction from a higher to a lower rank or post in the hierarchy of the service to which a Government servant seeking protection of that article belongs and not reduction in the same rank, e.g. losing places . in seniority in the rank to which he belongs. in seniority in the rank to which he belongs. 13. Another contention of the counsel was that once the appellant was promoted to the rank of Octroi Inspector, any punishment of forfeiture of service awarded to him prior to his promotion ceases to have any impact on his future promotion. Reference was made to the Apex Court judgment in Shri Baikuntha Nath Das & another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another reported in 1992(2) Recent Services Judgments Page 398 wherein it was held as under : "If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority." 14. Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellant, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the First Appellate Court in reversing the finding of issue No. 2 by holding defendant No. 2 senior to the plaintiff is not sustainable. 15. Though the ratio laid down in the aforesaid authority is not disputed but the facts of the aforesaid authority are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is a case where there is a forfeiture of service for a period of four years. Therefore, the same was not counted at the time of promotion of defendant No. 2 as Octroi Superintendent. It was on account of this reason that the plaintiff was reduced in seniority, though not otherwise reduced in rank. The punishment awarded to him has attained the finality as it was never challenged prior to the filing of the present suit. The observation of the trial Court that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred as the same was not filed within a period of limitation is hereby affirmed. 16. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the view taken by both the Courts below interpreting Rule 4(III) of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 has been interpreted correctly. The word forfeiture of service means reduction to a lower stage in time scale as one of the penalties which may be imposed on member of the service on whom these rules are applicable. 17. The word forfeiture of service means reduction to a lower stage in time scale as one of the penalties which may be imposed on member of the service on whom these rules are applicable. 17. Keeping in view the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court on issue No. 2 is based on the interpretation of the evidence brought on the record which does not call for any interference with the present Regular Second Appeal. 18. No other point was urged and argued before me. Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.