R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 17, 2010 State of Punjab and others .... Appellants Vs. Sagar Singh .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : State of Punjab and its officers (defendants) have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent Sagar Singh filed suit against the appellants. Admittedly, the plaintiff joined the services of the defendants as Clerk on 01.07.1963 and retired as Senior Assistant on 31.07.2002. The plaintiff claimed benefit of two additional increments under Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short – ACP Scheme) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per Government instructions dated 25.09.1998 (Ex.D-1). R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 2 The defendants controverted the claim of the plaintiff. Learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit holding him entitled to benefit of ACP Scheme after 32 years of service and directing the defendants to consider the same and to pay the consequent arrears within two months. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff joined service as Clerk on 01.07.1963 and for the first time, he was granted grade of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter, his next promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant was on 30.04.1997. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff-respondent had been granted two promotions i.e. first as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the second as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 30.04.1997 and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Learned trial court has relied on paragraph 3 (iv) of the ACP Scheme, which is reproduced hereunder :- “3. iv) In case an employee continues to R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 3 serve in the same post even after 32 years of service he shall be placed in the next higher pay-scale in the heirarchy of pay scales as indicated in Column 3 of the `First Schedule' annexed to the Rules, 1998 and his pay shall be fixed as mentioned in sub para (ii) above.” The said clause of the Scheme is not applicable to the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff, before completing 32 years of service, had been granted one promotion to the rank of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff continued to serve in the same post even after 32 years of service. However, clause 3 (i) of the ACP Scheme is applicable to the plaintiff. The said clause is reproduced hereunder :- “3. i) After a Service of 8 years in a post or posts in the same `Cadre' (hereinafter referred as the same post) an employee, who is not promoted to the next higher level on account of non-availability of a vacancy at such higher level or non-existence of a promotional level in the `Cadre' shall be granted the pay scale which is next higher in the heirarchy of Pay Scales given in column R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 4 No.3 of the `First Schedule' annexed to Rules, 1998. If on 1.1.1996 or the date opted under Rule 6 of Rules 1998, an employee becomes entitled to a higher pay scale on account of protection under the said rules, he shall be granted such higher pay scale.” Admittedly, the plaintiff was promoted as Junior Assistant on 01.01.1986 and he continued on the same post till 01.01.1996, the date from which the ACP Scheme came into force. The plaintiff thus worked on the said post of Junior Assistant for ten years. Accordingly, in view of Clause 3 (i) of the ACP Scheme, the plaintiff, on completion of 8 years of service in the said post, became entitled to the next higher pay scale under clause 3 (i) of the ACP Scheme, although w.e.f. 01.01.1996 only, as the ACP Scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1996 only. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to the said benefit, although for reasons different than the reasons assigned by the courts below. It may be clarified that the trial court ordered the benefit to be granted to the plaintiff on completion of 32 years of service, which would be from 01.07.1995, but the ACP Scheme itself came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and even the plaintiff claimed the benefit thereof w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and therefore, the said benefit would be admissible to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.01.1996 only. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the said benefit under clause 3 (i) of the ACP Scheme, as R. S. A. No. 2687 of 2010 5 mentioned herein above. Subject to the aforesaid classification, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine, as there is no merit in the same nor any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the appeal. September 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE