Regular Second Appeal No. 2413 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2413 of 1987 Date of decision: 24.04.2010 Sohal Lal Sharma ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The short question that arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal is about the right of an employee for grant of premature increment for not participating in strike on 08.02.1978. Counsel for the appellant would submit that this issue has already been settled by this Court in two separate decisions and thus would no more be res integra. The brief fact necessary to get the hang of the issues may be noticed. The services of the appellant were terminated on 31.03.1971 while he was serving as Clerk in Tehsil office at Rajpura. Subsequently, however, he was directed to be reinstated in view of the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on 04.04.1978. The appellant was accordingly reinstated with effect from 13.11.1978. He would accordingly plead that he was entitled to the benefit that would accrue from time to time. Reference is made to the decision of the Punjab Government to grant premature increment Regular Second Appeal No. 2413 of 1987 2 to those employees who did not participate in the strike which took place on 08.02.1978. All such employees were granted the special increment. Since the appellant was not in service on 08.02.1978, he obviously did not participate in the strike. He accordingly made a claim for grant of this special increment and when the same was denied to him, he had filed the suit. In response to a notice, written statement was filed. It was conceded that one advance premature increment was allowed to those employees (non-Gazetted) who did not participate in the strike on 08.02.1978. Plea is that since the appellant was either not present or was on leave, thus he would not be entitled to premature increment. It was also pleaded that claim of the appellant was time barred. Other details about the service of the appellant have not been terminated and his reinstatement are otherwise conceded. The following issues were framed in this case:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the special increment accruing on 8.2.1978 for not participation in strike? OPP. 2. Whether the claim is time barred? OPD. 3. Relief. Both the courts went against the appellant and thus he has filed this Regular Second Appeal. As already noticed, the issue involved in the present Regular Second Appeal stands adjudicated by the Court. In Kuldip Singh, Clerk, Municipal Committee, Nabha, District Patiala versus The State of Punjab and others 1990(1) Recent Services Judgment 403, this Court has already held that denial of claim on the ground that the employee was under Regular Second Appeal No. 2413 of 1987 3 suspension would be arbitrary and discriminatory. It is further observed that the respondent had deprived the employee of the opportunity of not participating in the strike and thus prevented him from exercising such option. Accordingly, the employee cannot be made to suffer for the wrong committed by the department. Similar view has been taken in Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 1987 decided on 19.04.1990. In this case, the judgment in the decision of Kulip Singh (supra) was referred and relied upon. Since the matter is squarely covered by above noted decisions, the substantial question of law arising in this case apparently was not rightly decided. The question of law that would arise in this case would be whether an employee could be denied the benefit of premature increment when he did not get an opportunity to exercise upon for not participating in the strike. This question has been decided as stated above. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set side. The appellant is held entitled to grant increment in terms of decision of the Government. Fresh decree sheet be prepared by the Registry of this Court. The arrears and all consequential relief is accordingly allowed to the appellant. April 24, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE