R.S.A.No. 957 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 957 of 2009 Date of Decision:August 17, 2009 Surender Singh ---Appellant versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff –Surender Singh had filed a suit for declaration. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge-I, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “ Brief facts are that the plaintiff had filed the suit R.S.A.No. 957 of 2009 -2- praying therein that the decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to get first A.C.P. (standard scale) on completion of 10 years service since from November, 1999 and was also entitled to recover the entire arrears on account of granting A.C.P. (Standard scale) along with interest @ Rs. 24% per annum from its respective date of becoming due till realization. 3. It was stated by the plaintiff that he had joined the serv ices as Conductor on 27.10.1989. He had completed ten years of service on October, 1999 and had become entitled to get first ACP since November , 1999 but the defendant No. 2 had not granted the same. The plaintiff had represented to the defendant No. 2 to grant him ACP from November, 1999 and to release the arrears but his request was turned down. Legal notice was also served upon the defendants but of no avail. Hence, necessity to file the suit arose. 4. In the Joint written statement, defendants submitted that ACR of the plaintiff for the year 1995-96 was doubtful and for the year 1996-97, 1998-99 adverse marks had been recorded. It has also been submitted that his ten increments were stopped without cumulative effect, three times warning was given and one time service was ensured, so, he was not entitled to ACP. The suit of the plaintiff was also contested on the preliminary submissions, as prayer for dismissal of the suit was R.S.A.No. 957 of 2009 -3- made.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the ACP after competition of 10 years service along with other consequential benefits as alleged? OPP (2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3)Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record had observed that plaintiff had failed to establish that he had earned 70% or more reports as good. It had further been observed by learned District Judge in its judgment that as per Ex. P-5 Enquiry Officer had found that allegations of embezzlement were not proved against the plaintiff but the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and served a show cause notice and thereafter, two increments of the plaintiff were stopped. DW-1 Phul Kumar, Clerk had deposed that 10 increments of the plaintiff was stopped without cumulative effect. Plaintiff was also given warning at three occasions and had also been censured. In these circumstances, courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration sought by him. R.S.A.No. 957 of 2009 -4- No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 PARAMJIT