R.S.A. No.1520 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1520 of 2008 Date of Decision:20.10.2008 Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala .....Appellant Vs. Gurbachan Dass and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Advocate for the appellant. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The brief facts giving rise to the suit are that the plaintiffs being employees of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project were transferred from Hydel Project and posted at Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar (for brevity `the GGSSTP') in C-I Cell in September, 2000. They have been performing duties with the defendant- Board as assigned to them at the respective places of their posting. Their duty certificates were sent by their respective in-charges for demanding their salary along with generation allowance. The officers of the defendant- Board under whose supervision, the plaintiffs used to perform their duties in the Cell were being paid 100% generation allowance. The defendants instead of 100% generation allowance only 60% of such allowance are giving to the plaintiffs without assigning any reason. The plaintiffs have performed their duties from October, 2000 to 4.6.2002 at GGSSTP in the Cell. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are also entitled for payment of allowance at such rate with a direction to the R.S.A. No.1520 of 2008 -2- defendants to determine and calculate such allowance at the said rate and to make payment of the balance amount along with interest from the due date till payment. In their written statement, the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs were earlier working at Anandpur Sahib, Hydel Project. They were declared surplus and as they were going to be retrenched, the Board by making a policy placed them at the disposal of the Chief Engineer, GGSSTP, Ropar. As alleged, the plaintiffs were working on non-technical job and as per norms of the Board, they were given 60% generation allowance. That merely posting in the Cell of the defendants, where 100% general allowance was being paid to the other workers, do not entitle them to get 100% generation incentive. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs are stopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with great eloquence that as per Annexure P.1, Finance Circular No.7/85 order No.379/ Fin. 385 dated 6.4.1985, the payment of incentive to non operative staff was 60% of the incentive admissible to operative staff. The plaintiffs- respondents being non-operative staff were R.S.A. No.1520 of 2008 -3- disentitled to claim 100% generation incentive. He further puts that by way of inadvertence, this circular could not be brought to the notice of the Courts below. It is apparent on the face of these arguments that Annexure P.1, which is the anchor-sheet or thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants was neither produced or proved before the Courts below. Arguendo, learned counsel for the appellants was asked as to whether or not an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved to seek permission to prove Annexure P.1 by leading additional evidence. The reply was in the negative. Thus from whatever angle, the matter may be viewed, Annexure P.1 cannot be read in evidence. As its consequence, it cannot be relied upon. A glance through the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection would reveal that on the given evidence, no contrary view can be taken. More to the point, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. October 20, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No