IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1387 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 09, 2008 Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and others ....Appellants Versus Jagjit Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. The respondent filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to first A.C.P. Scale of Rs. 5,500/- - 9,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and second A.C.P. Scale of Rs. 6,000/- - 9,5000/- with effect from 1.1.1998 and that memo. dated 27.1.2004 rejecting his claim for the A.C.P. scales was illegal, null and void. He also prayed for the grant of mandatory injunction so as to direct the defendants, i.e. the appellants, to pay him all the arrears of the said scales from the date on which the same accrued along with interest at the rate of 18% per Regular Second Appeal No. 1387 of 2007 --2-- annum. The suit was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat on 5.4.2006 and the respondent was held entitled to the A.C.P. scales as aforementioned. The memo. dated 27.1.2004 was declared illegal, null and void. The appellants were directed to pay the difference of pay between the pay already paid to him and pay he would have been entitled to after payment of first and second A.C.P. scales from the date given to the persons junior to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the same accrued up to the date of actual payment. The appellants challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by filing first appeal, which was dismissed with costs by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat on 30.10.2006. Still aggrieved, the appellants filed the present second appeal in this Court under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was filed after a delay of 40 days beyond the period of limitation prescribed for its filing. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. Initially, notice of the said application was issued to the respondent. On August 20, 2007, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. The respondent joined erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) as Lower Division Clerk on 14.9.1970. Regular Second Appeal No. 1387 of 2007 --3-- He was appointed as Steno-typist on 9.12.1975. After passing of the competitive test, he was appointed/promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on 14.12.1977. As per “Assured Career Progression Scheme”, which was introduced by the Board for its regular employees of group ‘C’ and ‘D’ with effect from 1.1.1996, he was entitled to first A.C.P. scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and second A.C.P. scale with effect from 1.1.1998 after completion of 10 years and 20 years, respectively, of satisfactory service from the date of his appointment as Junior Scale Stenographer. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not entitled for grant of first and second A.C.P. scales as he got a certificate issued under Rule 4.4 (c) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, whereas the other employees, who were junior to him were drawing higher pay than him. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the cross-examination of Pari Ram DW1, who stated that the other employees, who were junior to the respondent were drawing higher pay than him. Rule 4.4 (c) has to have uniform applicability to the persons promoted or appointed to higher posts. No distinction can be drawn in the matter of pay scale merely because the respondent was a promotee or that juniors to the respondents were drawing higher pay than him. It is then submitted on behalf of the appellants that as the Regular Second Appeal No. 1387 of 2007 --4-- respondent had requested to forego his promotion, he was not entitled to the A.C.P. scales. This argument does not hold any water as the respondent had requested for deferring his promotion only for two years. Even after the expiry of the said period of two years, he had not been granted the promotion. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The judgments passed by the learned lower Courts do not suffer from any legal infirmity. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants arise for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 09, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO