1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2803 of 2007 (O&M). Date of Decision: 28.1.2009 *** Dharam Parkash Kaushal .. Appellant VS. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in re-filing condoned. The plaintiff-appellant got instituted a suit and sought declaration that the defendant-respondents be directed not to treat the period from 30.11.1967 to 24.11.1970 as extra ordinary leave and after counting the aforesaid period in his service, he be granted the increment as per Assured Career Progression and consequently he be granted revised pensionary benefits after taking into consideration the aforesaid period. Both the Courts below non-suited the plaintiff and by virtue of the instant regular second appeal the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the case file very carefully. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant worked from 31.3.1962 to 18.6.1993 as Sanitary Inspector and promoted as Sectional Officer from 18.6.1963 to 30.11.1967, on which date, as per the case set out by the plaintiff, he was forced to resign. The plaintiff-appellant again joined the respondent-Department on 25.11.1970 as Sectional Officer. It has come on record that during the period interregnum he worked with Punjab State Electricity Board. On 30.9.1997 he stood retired from the service of 2 respondents. A perusal of impugned judgments reveal that nothing was produced by the appellant to substantiate his plea that the said resignation was forced upon him. Even this Court vide order dated July 29,2008 the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to place on record the resignation letter as also the order of re-appointment dated 25.11.1970, but that order remained unattended. Thus, both the Courts below rightly concluded that since the plaintiff was given fresh appointment, his service is to be counted w.e.f. 25.11.1970 and he is not entitled to get his past service counted towards service benefits. So far as the claim of the appellant for grant of ACP grade was concerned, it has specifically come on record that his case was sent to the competent authority for grant of ACP Grade but it was turned down since the ACRs of the appellant were not up to the prescribed standard. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are either illegal or perverse and need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 28,2009 Jiten