Regular Second Appeal No.3199 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 04, 2010 Janak Raj ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab & others ...Respondents 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.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant, who was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the control of respondents, retired on 31.10.2000. He had earlier joined the department of Technical Education, Punjab as Drawing Instructor (Civil) on adhoc basis w.e.f. 4.8.1967. Subsequently, the appellant was selected by Punjab Public Service Commission as Demonstrator (Civil) where he joined the service w.e.f. 20.1.1968. The appellant avers that on 16.2.1972 he was Regular Second Appeal No.3199 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : transferred to the department of Punjab PWD (B&R) where he joined as Sectional Officer (Civil) on 6.3.1972. This order was with continuity of service and other benefits of previous service. All the postings of the appellant were under the Government of Punjab and the educational qualifications and pay scale were also stated to be the same. On his superannuation, the papers for his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits were prepared. The appellant had completed all the formalities. Once the pension was ultimately sanctioned, his pay was statedly wrongly fixed at Rs.9750/- instead of Rs.10575/-. As per the appellant, this was on account of one missing increment out of two steps of proficiency admissible to him on completion of 24 years and 32 years service. He had accordingly filed this suit claiming two reliefs that his service rendered earlier from 1.8.1967 to 5.3.1972 was not being taken into account for the purpose of grant of pension and also that he was denied the proficiency step up. The Trial Court dismissed the suit against which the appellant filed an appeal, which is also dismissed. Though the Appellate Court had dealt with the issue regarding grant of proficiency step up and has declined the relief, but apparently the second relief sought by the appellant for counting his earlier service for the purpose of pension has not been attended to by the first Appellate Court. The Trial Court had non-suited the appellant for this relief on the ground that the benefit of period w.e.f. 1.8.1967 to 5.3.1972 would be hopelessly time barred. It is observed that the appellant was at liberty to claim the above-said benefits at appropriate time, but he failed to do so and filed the present suit only Regular Second Appeal No.3199 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : in March, 2004, which was found to be time barred. Counsel for the appellant would submit that his right to pension would have accrued only after his retirement and he learnt about non-counting of this service only once his pension order was passed. Prior to that, he could not have had any cause to agitate in the court or otherwise. Accordingly, the counsel would submit that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting his claim in this regard only on the ground of limitation. There is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. The cause for pension cannot be barred as it would amount to recurring cause of action every month when a person receives less pension. As already noticed, the cause of action also accrued to the appellant only once his pension was fixed and prior to that he has no cause of action. The finding of the first Appellate Court in regard to the proficiency steps up apparently does not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference. Since this issue has not been attended to by the first Appellate Court, the case is remitted back to the first Appellate Court to consider this aspect of counting the earlier service rendered by the appellant for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral benefits, ignoring the aspect of limitation and consider the prayer for counting the service, if otherwise permissible as per Rules. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 17.5.2010. May 04, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE