RSA No.2115 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2115 of 2007 Date of Decision: 05.12.2008 Housing Board Haryana and others ...... Appellants Versus Smt.Raj Rani ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Prabhjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Atul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. In this case the following order was passed on 27.7.2007 :- “After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, notice is being issued to the respondent only on the issue that the Court directed the grant of ACP Scale with effect from 1.1.1996 whereas the present suit was filed by the respondent- plaintiff on 5.8.2003 and the payment of arrears beyond 38 months on the date of filing of the suit could not be ordered. Notice of motion for 29.10.2007. Payment of arrears beyond 38 months from the date of filing of the suit is stayed.” Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute the fact that there was no explanation as to why the suit was not filed for such a long time after the direction of grant of ACP Scale. Thus, the interim RSA No.2115 2 finding of this Court to the effect that payment of arrears beyond 38 months from the date of filing of the suit cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his argument that arrears beyond 38 months from the date of filing of the suit cannot be awarded has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported as 2008(4) S.C.T. 19 and also a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2008(2) S.C.T. 623 and Neeti Rajan Singh v. State of Punjab and another. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to establish questions No. 1 and 3 which have been proposed. In view of the aforementioned case law question No. 2 is decided in favour of the appellants. Consequently this appeal is allowed in the above terms and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside to the extent indicated. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 05, 2008 sunita