RSA No. 2289 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2289 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.9.2009 Ram Gopal ......Appellant Versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.K. Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration challenging the orders dated 13.9.1995 and 28.2.1996 was dismissed. The plaintiff was intiially appointed as T-mate on work charge basis on 20.12.1977. He was promoted as Cleaner-cum-Messanger in July, 1983 and was given regular appointment on 1.12.1989 as Helper Grade-I. The said appointment as Helper Grade-I became subject matter of a vigilance inquiry for the reason that bogus experience certificates for appearing in ITI examination were said to be furnished by the plaintiff and many other candidates. In view of the said fact, offer of appointment as RSA No. 2289 of 2008 (2) Helper Grade-I, was ordered to be withdrawn on 13.9.1995 (Exhibit P.4). Subsequently, the plaitniff was offered appointment as Helper Grade-I vide letter of appointment dated 28.2.1996 (Exhibit P.5), but with the stipulation that benefit of pay will be from 9.6.1993, when his immediate junior in the combined merit was given appointment. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid condition of restriction of pay from 9.6.1993 in the present suit, which has been declined by the Courts below. The learned first Appellate Court has, inter-alia, found that the plaintiff is estopped to challenge such condition as he has accepted the appointment in pursuance of letter of appointment dated 28.2.1996 (Exhibit P.5). Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the condition in the letter of appointment dated 28.2.1996 is legally not tenable for the reason that he was appointed as Helper Grade-I with effect from 1.12.1989 and is entitled to pay of the said post from the said date itself. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to memo dated 9.10.1996 (Exhibit P.6), wherein it was communicated that pay and allowances already drawn by the plaintiff on the post of Helper Grade-I, cannot be recovered as he has actually worked on the said post. In view of the said communication, the only question which arises is whether a condition of grant of benefit of pay from 9.6.1993 is legal and valid. Earlier, the offer of appointment to the post of Helper Grade-I, was withdrawn in view of a pending inquiry relating to furnishing of experience certificate. After conclusion of the inquiry, the plaintiff was given benefit of pay from the date his junior was given such benefit i.e., 9.6.1993. Therefore, the fixation of the salary from the said date has a RSA No. 2289 of 2008 (3) reasonable nexus and thus, the plaintiff-appellant cannot claim the pay from the date of his initial appointment, when the same was withdrawn on 13.9.2005. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants may recover the pay and allowances drawn by the appellant as Helper Grade-I prior to withdrawal of offer of appointment is misconceived. It has already been communicated vide Exhibit P.6 that such pay and allowances cannot be recovered from the plaintiff as he has worked on the said post. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 9.9.2009 ds