Regular Second Appeal No. 2079 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2079 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.5.2009 *** State of Haryana .. Appellant VS. Mahabir Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below to the effect that orders dated 31.10.2005 and 16.11.2005 restricting the suspension period of the plaintiff to the suspension allowance only are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. By setting aside the same, it was further held that the plaintiff is entitled to get annual increments as well as higher standard pay scale as per Government instructions and consequently benefit of revised pension. The defendants have been directed to pay the interest @ 6% per annum on the payments. Having heard the learned State counsel this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the same. It emerges out from the paper book that before passing the impugned orders no opportunity of hearing was provided to the plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below while relying upon the judicial pronouncements concurrently held that non compliance of principles of natural justice invalidate the impugned orders. As per admission of own witness of defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to the higher standard pay scale, which was not conferred upon him. Regular Second Appeal No. 2079 of 2009 2 Consequently, it was concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of higher standard pay scale. The findings returned by the appellate Court while endorsing that of the trial Court are discernible from reading of para No.10 of its judgment, which reads as under:- “10. There is also no force in the contention of learned Government Pleader that plaintiff/ respondent was not entitled to standard pay scale, since he had no satisfactory service to his credit. No cogent evidence has been brought on record by the defendants/ appellants to prove that plaintiff/ respondent did not earn requisite Annual Confidential Reports in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. Further, learned Government Pleader for the State has also failed to convince this Court that why the plaintiff/ respondent is not entitled to the benefit of annual increment falling due in his favour. The claim of the plaintiff/ respondent stands further fortified by the letter Ex.P12 written by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak to General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind, wherein it is specifically mentioned that plaintiff is entitled for higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and General Manager Haryana Roadways, Jind was requested to grant him higher pay scale and send his service record in accordance with that. There is also no force in the contention of learned Government Pleader for the appellants/ defendants that annual confidential reports of the plaintiff for the year 1989-90 was not good. The appellants have also failed to prove on record whether the same was conveyed to the plaintiff/ respondent or not. It is settled law that when adverse remarks remain uncommunicated or the remarks against which the representation of the employee is pending consideration, the same cannot be taken into consideration to exclude a candidate from consideration Regular Second Appeal No. 2079 of 2009 3 for promotion. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his case has placed reliance upon Parveen Kumar Vadehra Vs. PGI Chandigarh and others, 2004 (4) SCT 162. Thus, I agree with the findings of the learned lower court.” The aforesaid findings leave no manner of doubt that what has been observed concurrently by the Courts below, is neither illegal nor perverse or based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 20,2009 Jiten