Regular Second Appeal No. 4985 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4985 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : September 21, 2010 Pal Singh ....Appellant versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 14708.C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 14709.C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 4985 of 2009 Plaintiff Pal Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below is in second appeal. Plaintiff joined the services of the defendants on 9.7.1987 as Lineman. The plaintiff in the suit claimed benefit of time bound promotional scales on rendering services of 9 years and 16 years w.e.f. Regular Second Appeal No. 4985 of 2009(O&M) -2- 9.7.1996 and 9.7.2003 because the same were denied to him. The plaintiff was granted first promotional scale w.e.f. 1.4.2001. He claims the same w.e.f. 9.7.1996. The plaintiff also challenged adverse remarks in annual confidential reports (ACRs) for 1992-93, 1995-96 and 1996-97. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia, contended that in view of service record including adverse ACRs, the plaintiff was not entitled to the higher scales w.e.f. 9.7.1996 and 9.7.2003 and he has been rightly granted first higher scale w.e.f. 1.4.2001. He was also awarded minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without future effect and his absence period was treated as leave of the kind due. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 dismissed plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Admittedly, ACRs for 1992-93, 1995-96 and 1996-97 of the plaintiff were below average. As per plaintiff's own documentary evidence, the same were conveyed to him. There was also punishment order passed against the appellant regarding minor punishment. Keeping in view the service record, the defendants found the plaintiff not entitled to first higher scale w.e.f. 9.7.1996 on completion of 9 years service. No fault can be found with the said order keeping in view the bad service record of the Regular Second Appeal No. 4985 of 2009(O&M) -3- plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that ACR for 1995-96 was conveyed to him vide letter dated 11.9.1996 i.e. after the first higher scale had become due w.e.f. 9.7.1996 and therefore, the said ACR could not be taken into consideration. The contention cannot be accepted. ACR for 1995-96 was for the period ending 31.3.1996 and therefore, the same had to be taken into consideration for first higher scale which became due on 9.7.1996 i.e. after the period of said ACR. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that representation against the said ACR was rejected vide memo dated 4.2.2004 and before decision on the said representation, the said ACR could not be taken into consideration. This contention is also devoid of any merit because vide memo dated 4.2.2004, representation against ACR for 1996-97 was rejected and the said rejection was not of representation against ACR for 1995-96. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that minor punishment could not be taken into consideration for denying the benefit of higher scale in view of relevant instructions. However, learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any instructions under which minor punishment could not be taken into consideration for this purpose. However, even if the minor punishment is ignored, adverse ACRs of the plaintiff were also found sufficient to deny the said benefit to him w.e.f. 9.7.1996. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Courts below have given concurrent finding against the plaintiff- appellant after appreciation of evidence. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality Regular Second Appeal No. 4985 of 2009(O&M) -4- warranting interference in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine being bereft of any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 21, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'