RSA No.3720 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3720 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.10.2008 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Appellants Vs. D.N. Gupta ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) CM No.10438-C of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.3720 of 2007 The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit praying for grant of a decree for declaration, in essence, praying that he be placed to the same pay scale as his junior Baldev Singh, who by grant of the benefit of the ACP scheme, was drawing a higher salary. The respondents opposed this prayer by asserting that grant of a pay scale, equal to the pay scale being drawn by Baldev Singh, would in essence, lead to the grant of a second benefit to the appellant under the ACP Scheme. As grant of a second benefit under the scheme is not permissible, the respondent cannot be granted this benefit. RSA No.3720 of 2007 2 On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 2nd ACP scale of Rs.5450-8000 from 1.1.1996 with consequential benefits ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Relief.” After considering the entire dispute, the learned trial Court decreed the suit by rejecting the appellants contention that by grant of parity to the respondent in accordance with the pay scale being drawn by his junior, the respondent would be granted a second benefit under the ACP Scheme. It was held that the respondent's claim was, in essence, a claim for parity in the pay scale being drawn by his junior. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed the appeal by affirming the findings returned by the trial Court. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have granted a second benefit under the ACP scheme. The respondent joined as a Lower Division Clerk, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and is now working as Commercial Assistant. The impugned judgements and decrees, RSA No.3720 of 2007 3 in essence, grant a second benefit under the ACP Scheme, which is impermissible. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below be set aside. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the respondent may have prayed for grant of a second benefit under the ACP Scheme, his prayer is in essence for grant of the pay scale, being drawn by his junior. It is submitted that as both the Courts below have held that the respondent was senior to Baldev Singh, they rightly accepted the claim for grant of the same pay scale as being paid to Baldev Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. Both the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have concurrently held that Baldev Singh though junior to the respondent is drawing a salary in a higher pay scale than the respondent. As a result, the Courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit. The respondent cannot be placed in a scale lower to that of his junior. As no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication, the appeal is dismissed. 24.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE