R.S.A. No.1532 of 2007 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No.1532 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 05, 2009 Satya Narain Verma ---Appellant versus Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.R.K.Redhu,Advocate, for the appellant Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana. *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff – Satya Narain had filed a suit for declaration. Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 and of its judgment read as under:- “The plaintiff was initially appointed as a clerk in the office of R.S.A. No.1532 of 2007 (O&M) -2- the Deputy Commissioner, district Mahendergarh at Narnaul on 01.11.1963 . He was promoted to the post of an Assistant on 12.09.1983. On attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, the plaintiff had retired on 30.06.1999 when he was serving as an Assistant. As per the policy of the defendants, the appellant-plaintiff was entitled for grant of higher standard pay scale on completion of 10 and 20 years regular satisfactory service. On completion of the required tenure of service, the appellant-plaintiff had become eligible for grant of higher standard pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Non granting of the said pay scale to him has resulted in the present litigation. 3. In their joint written statement furnished by the defendants, a tough contest was made to the suit. It was claimed that not only the suit was barred by limitation but it was neither maintainable nor the plaintiff has locus standi to file the same as his service record was below the required standard. It is claimed that Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant-plaintiff for his promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent was dismissed vide order dated 4.12.2000. Taking a glance through his service record it was elaborated as under:- “Plaintiff was initially appointed as Peon to field Kanoongo, Narnaul on 31.5.1962, and thereafter, he was appointed as apprentice Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul on 1.11.1963 where he remained continued as clerk up to R.S.A. No.1532 of 2007 (O&M) -3- 31.5.1964 and thereafter, he was reverted as peon for relief work in Deputy Commissioner's office, Narnaul. Thereafter, on 1.9.1964, he was again appointed as Clerk in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mahendergarh on the recommendation of S.S.S. Board, Punjab, Chandigarh. He remained in class-III service w.e.f. 10.9.1964. It is further submitted that he never remained vigilant and honest to his work and there are so many stigma on the service record of the plaintiff and many confidential reports are unsatisfactory and there are also adverse remarks against the integrity of the plaintiff in the ACRs for the year 1987-88. 4. It is further case of the defendants that the plaintiff was promoted on 12.09.1983 and later was given three months notice on 04.04.1996 for his premature retirement at the age of 55 years in terms of provisions containe4d in Rule 3.36(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I. This order was challenged by the plaintiff but till before his retirement the matter had to decided. It is thus claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to higher standard pay scale. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of higher R.S.A. No.1532 of 2007 (O&M) -4- standard pay scale for the post of Deputy Superintendent w.e.f. 1.1.1994? OPP (2)If issue no. 1 is proved plaintiff deserves interest if so at what rate? OPP (3)Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD (5) Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, appellant-plaintiff had joined the service of the defendants-respondents as a Clerk on 1.11.1963. He was promoted as an Assistant on 12.9.1983. Plaintiff was entitled to be considered for grant of higher standard pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994 on completion of 10 years of regular satisfactory service in terms of the instructions issued by the State on 8.2.1984. Undisputedly, the plaintiff was required to have obtained at least 70% or more reports “Good” or better category during the span of last 10 years. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not earn “Good” or better category reports to the extent of 70% during the span of last 10 years. In these circumstances, both the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 05, 2009 PARAMJIT