IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.978 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.8.2010 State of Punjab and others … Appellants Versus Baldev Kaur …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Suveer Sehgal, Additional Advocate General Punjab. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The basic issue raised in this appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is whether refusal of promotion by an employee would deprive him/her the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (for brevity ‘ACP’) which are available on completion of 8/18 and 24/32 years of service. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Tipar Chand Sharma and others v. State of Punjab (CWP No.6049 of 1997 decided on 6.5.1998) has held that mere denial to avail promotion would not result into refusal of benefit arising from the instructions incorporating ACP. In the present case, the instructions are dated 25.9.1998 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner- respondent had completed more than 8/18 years of service on the appointed date. It is a conceded position that against the Division Bench judgment in Tipar Chand Sharma’s case (supra) no Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the aforesaid judgment has attained finality. We do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are further of the view that once the principle of law LPA No.978 of 2010 (O&M) [2] stands settled in the case of Tipar Chand Sharma (Supra) nothing remains for us to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and the judgment in Tipar Chand Sharma’s case (supra) would be binding as a precedent. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we are not inclined to pass any order in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 359 days delay in filing this appeal. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 16.08.2010 sd