R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.02.2009 The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Faridkot and others ....Appellants Versus Guranditta S/o Keera Khan ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008 titled The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Faridkot and others Vs. Guranditta S/o Keera Khan and R.S.A. No. 1846 of 2008 titled The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Faridkot and others Vs. Satnam Singh S/o Baj Singh, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008. The plaintiff, who is an employee of the Food Corporation of India, filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to salary on Industrial Dearness Allowance pattern (IDA). R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The plea of the plaintiff was that the Central Government issued a notification in the year of 1993, which stood adopted by the Corporation, vide which the employees were given an option to opt for IDA pattern of salary. The plaintiff opted to go for IDA pattern. However, no decision was taken on the option of the plaintiff and he continud to draw his salary as per CDA pattern. The suit was contested on the plea that the suit was time barred as the plaintiff continued to receive salary under CDA pattern upto the year 1996 without any objection. The learned Courts below held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the plaintiff/respondent had opted for IDA pattern within the period stipulated in the circular. It was for the defendants to have taken decision, thus, it could not be said that the suit was time barred. The learned Courts recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the option was exercised by the plaintiff/respondent for IDA pattern, therefore, it was incumbent upon the defendant/appellants to have considered and taken decision on the option exercised by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed with a direction to the defendant/appellants to consider the option exercised by the plaintiff/respondent and fix his pay accordingly. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court stand affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained, as the suit was time barred. Even otherwise the R.S.A. No. 973 of 2008 (O&M) -3- plaintiff/respondent was stopped from seeking IDA pattern having accepted CDA pattern for a period of more than three years after option. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Once option was called for from the employees to elect the pattern of pay and an employee opted for the same, the authorities then were bound to take decision thereon. The plea that the principle of estoppel would apply, also cannot be accepted, as inaction on the part of the defendant/appellants cannot be a ground to raise estoppel against plainitff/respondent. It is proved on record that necessary option by the plaintiff/respondent was exercised in time. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 02, 2009 R.S.