IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3252 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 16, 2009 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Appellants Versus V.K. Pathak .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the respondent was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal on 30.8.2008 and he was held entitled to get his pay fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per office order No.705 dated 24.2.1998 and issued vide memo dated 27.9.2004. The defendants/ appellants were directed to fix the pay of the respondent in the revised pay scale of Rs.6000-9500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and thereafter in the first ACP scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and in second ACP scale w.e.f. 1.10.2002. The appellants were also directed to make payment of the arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal on 8.4.2009 when the first appeal filed R.S.A. No.3252 of 2009 -2- by the appellants was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are now before this Court in the second appeal which they have filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the testimony of DW1 Manoj Kumar, U.D.C. it stood established that the pay of the respondent was required to be fixed in the revised pay scales first and thereafter in the ACP scale. He also admitted that the pay of the respondent was directly fixed in first ACP scale. Even as per letter dated 27.9.2004 issued by the Financial Advisory, UHBVNL, Panchkula, the pay of the employee was to be fixed in the initial pay scale first and thereafter in first ACP scale. Despite the same, the pay of the respondent was not fixed in the initial pay scale. It was directly fixed in the first ACP scale. The stand of the appellants that the plaintiff-respondent could not be given the benefit of letter dated 27.9.2004 issued by the Financial Advisory, UHBVNL, Panchkula as he had been given the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 does not hold ground as the benefits passed under the aforementioned letter dated 27.9.2004 were meant for all the employees, who were in employment earlier to 27.9.2004. Though the plaintiff was held entitled to the first ACP scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 yet in view of the fact that the defendants themselves granted second ACP scale to him from 1.10.2002, the learned Courts below were justified in extending him the benefit of second ACP scale R.S.A. No.3252 of 2009 -3- from the said date, instead of waiting for a period of another three years before it had become due. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the material evidence brought on the record. These findings cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These are not liable to be set aside in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellants, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) September 16, 2009 JUDGE satish