IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 144 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 28, 2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Jagmal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Hry. for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 6115 of 2008 alongwith another one. For allowing the petition, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, namely, Tajvir and others v. State of Haryana and others 2008(4) S.C.T. 469 and Dr.Romila Jain v. State of Haryana and another (C.W.P. No. 11125 of 1993, decided on 27.1.1995). The learned Single Judge has also held that the order rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner- LPA No. 144 of 2011 -2- respondents was not legally sustainable because his ACRs were illegally rejected. The basic reason for rejection was that the ACRs were written by Senior Clerk/Assistant, which according to learned Single Judge was the fault of the appellants themselves. 2. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has argued that there are various legal hurdles in the way of the writ petitioner-respondents to claim the ACP by counting the services rendered by them in a private aided college. He has drawn our attention to the Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 notified on 7.1.1998. According to the learned State counsel, Rule 5 provided for eligibility for grant of ACP Scales. The basic condition required to be specified is that every Government servant after rendering a regular satisfactory service for a minimum period of ten years may become entitle to the grant of ACP Scales. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner-respondents did not render ten years service as Government servant and their remaining service was not qualified to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of ACP Scales. Another contention raised by the learned State counsel is that according to the terms and conditions of taking over of College by the Government on 17.5.2005 (R-1) the pay of the taken over employees was to be fixed at the initial stage of the pay scale of the post in the Government and it was to be regularized according to Government rules/instructions. It has also been pointed out that all employees of taken over College were LPA No. 144 of 2011 -3- required to file an undertaking that they would abide by all the terms and conditions in respect of appointment, pay fixation and seniority etc. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Dev Dutt Kaushal and others 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 748, he has argued that the terms and conditions of taking over would determine the rights of the parties and the employees are bound by them. 3. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that none of these arguments were raised before the learned Single Judge. We are further of the view that if a fact or a rule has not been brought to the notice of a Court of law then no appeal would be competent but the remedy would have to be availed before the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. Accordingly, we are relegating the appellant to a legal remedy before the learned Single Judge which may be availed if so advised. 4. The appeal is, thus, without merit which is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) January 28, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I