Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.1.2009 *** Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Balbir Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming the benefit of pay protection, maintenance of seniority, grant of earned leave and the benefit of service rendered by him on work charge basis towards retiral benefits. It is apt to mention here that all the relief, except pay protection, were granted to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. With regard to the relief sought qua pay protection, the learned trial court as well as first Appellate Court below, on the basis of admissions made by DW.2 N.K. Bhateja, Section Officer to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to re-fixation of his basic pay as Rs.1760/- from pre-revised pay of Rs.850/- which was not given to him as well as entries in the service record of the plaintiff coupled with other evidence, concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled to protection of his pay @ Rs.850/- w.e.f. 15.1.1986 i.e. the date of his joining as J.E. and consequentially the plaintiff was further held entitled to the increment and ACP on the basis of revised pay scale. Although, an attempt was made to say that the suit of the plaintiff was not within limitation, but the learned First Appellate Court below while Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009 2 appreciating the law on the subject and the fact that the plaintiff was not paid the salary to which he actually is entitled, rightly held that recurring cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff every month and delay and latches cannot come in his way of getting the said relief, but the arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period and hence while relying upon the case of Saroj Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1998(5) SLR 266, the plaintiff was rightly held entitled, by the learned First Appellate Court below, to the arrears of 38 months preceding the date of filing of the suit and onwards, by modifying the judgment of the learned trial court which speaks about grant of complete arrears. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below is either illegal or perverse. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 15,2009 Jiten