R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:28.07.2011 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited .....Appellant Versus Santokh Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 already exparte. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J. (oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Santokh Singh-respondent No.1-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated 19.02.2004 issued by the Chief Engineer, Thermal Plant-defendant No.2, ordering the stoppage of payment of increased salary, on account of grant of 9/16 years' time bound promotional scale from the date of acceptance of his request of foregoing promotion to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 28.03.2001, is null & void and inoperative. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 04.08.2008, the operative part of which is, as under:- “In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed with costs. It is declared that order No.232/CE/Thermal dated 19.2.2004 passed by the defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void and the defendants are hereby restrained from R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 (O&M) 2 reducing the salary in the garb of re-fixation of pay by withdrawing the benefits of salary increase on account of grant of 9/16 years time bound promotional scale from 28.3.2001 or from any other date and effecting recoveries from the salary of the plaintiffs in terms of the impugned order except in due course of law.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the appellant- defendant No.1-Punjab State Electricity Board, now substituted as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and its Chief Engineer-defendant No.2(for brevity “the defendants”) filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2009. 4. Appellant-defendant No.1 still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant regular second appeal in this context. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff has submitted that the controversy involved in the instant appeal is covered by the judgment dated 02.08.2005(Annexure R-1) of a Coordinate Bench (Ashutosh Mohunta, J.) of this Court in RSA No.858 of 2004 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Miss Daljit Kaur, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by way of order (Annexure R-2). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has fairly acknowledged the legal position. It is also not a matter of dispute that relying upon the judgment (Annexure R-1), another Coordinate Bench (L.N.Mittal, J.) of this Court has also reiterated the same legal position in RSA No.4785 of 2009 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board and another Versus Teja singh, JE-II, decided on 10.12.2010. 8. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 (O&M) 3 involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court. In Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Teja Singh, JE-II's case (supra), it was ruled as under:- “I have carefully considered the rival contentions. If the plaintiff had foregone his promotion before he became eligible to time bound promotional scale, then under the instructions relied on by counsel for the appellants, the plaintiff would have been ineligible to grant of time bound promotional scale thereafter. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff had been granted time bound promotional scales with effect from 17.06.1989 and 17.06.1996 and long thereafter the plaintiff made request to forego his promotion which was allowed. However, on the basis of said subsequent event, the promotional scales already granted to the plaintiff on account of eligibility for the same could not be withdrawn. In this view, I am supported by judgment Annexure R-1 in the case of Daljit Kaur(supra). Judgment in the case of Sardara Singh(supra) relied on by counsel for the appellant is not applicable because in that case, the writ petitioner did not challenge the correctness of withdrawal of the benefits at the time of hearing of the writ petition and the writ petitioner confined his prayer only to set aside the order of recovery from him. The said prayer was allowed. Thus, in that case correctness of withdrawal of time bound promotional scale was not agitated nor adjudicated upon. On the contrary, facts of the case of Daljit Kaur(supra) are identical. In that case also, plaintiff-respondent Daljit Kaur had been granted time bound promotional scales and subsequently she made request to forego promotion which request was allowed. On its basis, time bound promotional scale was withdrawn. The said action was set aside. The said judgment is, therefore, fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Consequently, impugned order dated 27.01.2004 passed by defendant-appellant No.2 withdrawing the benefit of time bound promotional scales of the plaintiff-respondent is completely illegal and unsustainable. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be added that the impugned order was passed without issuing show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent-plaintiff. For this added reason also, the said order is null and void.” 9. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 (O&M) 4 to the problem in hand. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed in the same terms of the judgments dated 02.08.2005 and 10.12.2010, as in Miss Daljit Kaur and Teja singh, JE-II.'s cases(supra). July 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 (O&M) 5 C.M.Nos.7081 to 7084-C of 2010 in R.S.A. No.2377 of 2010 Present: Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 already exparte. **** C.M.No.7081-C of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. C.M.Nos.7083-7082-C of 2010 There is a delay of 5 days' in filing and 337 days' in re-filing the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the applications, which are supported by the affidavits, the same are allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing and 337 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. Civil Misc. applications stand disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.7084-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of Surjit Singh, Deputy Secretary, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited is substituted, in place of erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board- appellant. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to make the necessary corrections in the Memo of Parties in this relevant connection. July 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE