R.S.A.No.2299 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2299 of 2008 Date of Decision : 17.7.2009 Surinder Randhawa ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab through its Secretary Transport ...Respondents Department, Chandigarh and others CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration claiming fixation of his salary as Traffic Manager (Class-II) at the stage next above his pay in the lower post of Superintendent and for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity, was dismissed. The said claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants on the ground that pay scale of both the posts i.e. Superintendent Grade-II and Traffic Manager was same prior to 1.1.1996. Since the pay scale of both the posts are identical, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the additional increment. R.S.A.No.2299 of 2008 2 Learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has not reported that after holding the post of Traffic Manager, he was involved in higher responsibilities than that of Superintendent. Since the pay scales of both the posts were identical, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional increment. It has been further found that plaintiff was also convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 1.9.2005 and the plaintiff's appeal is pending before this Court, therefore, the defendants were justified by not granting certificate under Rule 4.4 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services, to the effect that the plaintiff was holding a post of higher responsibility. Such decree has been affirmed in appeal as well. Since the pay scales of both the posts i.e. Superintendent Grade-II and Traffic Manager were identical, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional increment unless the plaintiff is able to show that the new post involves assumption of higher duties and responsibilities as contemplated in Rule 4.4 (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. In the absence of any such proof of higher duties and responsibilities, the findings recorded by the Courts below, cannot be said to be illegal or irregular, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the death- cum-retirement gratuity has not been released to the plaintiff. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff stands convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar and his appeal is pending. In view of his R.S.A.No.2299 of 2008 3 conviction, the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity can be withheld. Thus, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 17.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE