Regular Second Appeal No.912 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 Chint Singh ...........Appellant Versus Chairman-cum-M.D. BSNL and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Bahadur Singh,Advocate for the appellant ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Chint Singh filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to re-fix the pay of the plaintiff in OTBP Scales after considering his option as per letter dated 14.3.1991. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge, in para of its judgment reads as under:- "1. The facts, in brief, are that Chint Singh appellant-plaintiff joined as peon with Chandigarh office of defendants on 8.8.1965 and was promoted as Daftri on 1.6.1974. He retired from service on 31.1.2001. The defendants introduced `one time bound promotion' scheme for Grade C and D employees under which benefit of higher scale was to be granted to the Regular Second Appeal No.912 of 2009 (O&M) 2 employees on completion of 16 years of service vide letter dated 17.12.1983. But these benefits were not given to the Daftries. On representation of the Daftries, the scheme was extended to the Daftries also vide letter dated 14.3.1991. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said letter was neither circulated nor got noted down from him and as such he is deprived of the benefit of the scheme. He came to know about the letter dated 14.3.1991 only in November,2000 when he visited Circle Office, Sector 34, Chandigarh. He made representation on 19.11.2001 for getting the new pay scale under this scheme and the same was decided vide impugned order dated 9.4.2003 on the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal given vide order dated 10.1.2000. He preferred a civil writ petition No.11628 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2004 (Ex.P6), relegating to avail the remedy by way of civil suit. It is also pleaded that Roshan Lal, Subhash Chand and Satish who were working as Daftries were also not informed about the order dated 14.3.1991. That he is entitled to claim the benefits of the scheme which have been illegally declined vide order dated 19.4.2003. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit that the order dated 9.4.2003 is illegal and void and he is entitled to all the benefits as per letter dated 14.3.1991 and the defendants be directed to re-fix his pay under new scale and release the payment with interest @ 18% per annum." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- Regular Second Appeal No.912 of 2009 (O&M) 3 “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaitniff has not served a legal notice under Section 80 CPC on the defendants, if so its effect?OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had based his claim seeking `one time bound promotion' scale allowed vide letter dated 14.3.1991 (Exhibit P1). The learned District Judge in its judgment has observed that during the cross- examination, plaintiff himself stated that a letter was received from the Government in the year 1983 which was not applicable to him. The letter was again received in the year 1991 for giving selection grade to daftries having 26 years of service. That the person seeking the selection grade was to give the option within six months' from the date of the said letter. Plaintiff had further deposed that he had not given any option to seek benefit under the said Scheme. The said factual position remains uncontroverted. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly observed that the plaintiff had taken a false plea that the letter dated 14.3.1991 had never been brought to his notice and he came to know about the same only in November, 2000. Regular Second Appeal No.912 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Since the plaintiff has not submitted his option for the Scheme within six months from the date of issuance of the said letter, he could not claim the said benefits by filing the suit in the year 2004. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 22, 2009 arya