Regular Second Appeal No.3442 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hisar & others ...Appellants VERSUS H.G.Bhatia ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vibhor, Advocate, for Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. While issuing notice of motion, following substantial questions of law were formulated on 27.10.2009:- “i) Whether in the absence of any administrative approval of Finance Department, can an employee claim Regular Second Appeal No.3442 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : the salary of the higher post? ii) Whether in the absence of any regular/sanctioned post or vacancy, the respondent-plaintiff can claim for the salary of Law Officer during the period designated as Law Officer? iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are totally wrong, illegal and erroneous and is result of misleading of evidence and misrepresentation of law applicable thereto and are liable to be set aside? iv) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of pay in the higher pay-scale without discharging any actual duty on the higher post? v) Whether the time barred representation can be taken into consideration for deciding the issue of pay scale of higher post? Thereafter the case was adjourned on few occasions. In between, the case was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Today, counsel for the appellants prays for time to argue the matter and when this prayer is declined, he submits that the court may pass any order. The respondent-plaintiff was initially appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer with the appellant-Board. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Law Officer on 17.5.1991. The respondent- plaintiff could not immediately join and ultimately joined the post on 8.1.1992. On 18.6.1992, the respondent-plaintiff was designated as Law Officer and was assigned the work of Law Officer. As per the Regular Second Appeal No.3442 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : averment, he was promoted on a regular basis to the post of Law Officer w.e.f. 18.11.2004. He accordingly made a claim that though he is appointed as law Officer but was not granted the pay scale/salary attached to the post of Law Officer. He made various representations. His request was considered, but he was told that the same was found not feasible. He accordingly filed this suit. In the reply filed, objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit and that the same was bad for want of prior notice. Plea of limitation was also raised and that the same was not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Otherwise, it is conceded that the respondent-plaintiff was promoted as a regular Law Officer from 18.11.2004. It is also not disputed that he was initially appointed as Assistant Law Officer on 17.5.1991 but was posted on 13.1.1992 on account of injunction order passed by the court. The prayer made in the suit was opposed on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff continued to be Assistant Law Officer and was not promoted as a regular Law Officer. Thus, he was not entitled to the pay attached to the post. It is also stated that the promotion of an employee is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and no vacant post of Law Officer was available till 17.11.2004, so he could not be promoted to this post. Accordingly, it is stated that he was not eligible and entitled to the pay scale and the arrears. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff. The appellant-Board was directed to pay the arrears of salary within a period of three months and on failure to do so, liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Board filed an Regular Second Appeal No.3442 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : appeal against the same, which was also dismissed and that is why Board has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Once it is conceded by the Board that respondent-plaintiff was appointed to work as a Law Officer, it was not his concern whether this order was passed after taking approval from the Finance Department. The internal matter in the functioning of the Board could be of no concern of the respondent-plaintiff. It would be for the Board to take any action against the employee in case any appointment/promotion was made wrongly, but Board cannot be heard to say that they can deny the salary to respondent-plaintiff once they conceded that he was promoted/appointed to work as a Law Officer. The position as would emerge from the pleadings is that in the absence of a regular sanctioned post, to deny salary to the respondent-plaintiff is also apparently against the pleadings. As already noted, the post of Law Officer came into existence w.e.f. 18.11.2004. Since the counsel for the appellants has not made any submission on merits, there is nothing to point out that how the judgment under appeal is wrong, illegal or erroneous. The substantial questions of law as formulated, thus, really would not arise in this case. There is no other plea made before me. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE