RSA No.2149 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2149 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 Jagat Singh ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG., Haryana. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant (herein referred as the plaintiff) against the judgment dated 8.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa dismissing the suit of the plaintiff claiming for the Ist and Second standard Scale of Rs.1400-2650 w.e.f. 1.01.1994, Second ACP Scale of Rs.5750 w.e.f 1.1.1996 and consequent re- fixation of pension. Undisputed facts are that the appellant was appointed as RSA No.2149 of 2010 2 Conductor in Haryana Roadways on 28.12.1973 and retired on 31.07 2004 on superannuation after completing 20 years of service. He has claimed that he was entitled to Ist and Second Scale on 1.1.1994 and Second ACP Scale on 1.1.1996. Stand taken by the defendants/respondents (herein referred as the defendants) is that though the plaintiff was conductor but he failed to earn his satisfactory service continuously for 10 years as on 1.1.1994 for the grant of second standard scale. Consequently, he was also not granted ACP scale for want of 20 years satisfactory service. From the pleadings of the parties as aforesaid, trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this court?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 7. Relief. RSA No.2149 of 2010 3 Arguments heard. Record perused. The appellant was appointed as conductor on 28.12.1973 by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar vide order No.5254/ECC dated 27.12.1973. He indulged in many cases of embezzlement. History sheet of the cases pertaining to fraud committed by him and punishment awarded is reproduced as under: SrNo Date Amount of fraud Punishment awarded Remarks 1 16.1.75 3-00 Security forfeited Vide order No.1734/EA dated 21.3.75 2 12/08/75 0-71 One increment stopped without commutative effect Order No.1917/TAI Dated 28.11.77 3 25.4.78 45-00 Warning Order No.187/TI Dated 6.6.78 4 20.12.75 2-00 One increment stopped without cumulative effect Order No.2670/TA Dated 26.4.78 5 28.11.83 Ten time charged from passeng er Negligency of conductor, warning issued Order No.2160/TA Dated 22.12.83 6 14.1.84 -do- -do- Order No.309/TA Dated 20.3.84 7 13.6.83 5-85 One increment stopped with cumulative effect Order No.1084/TA Dated 13.8.84 8 25.12.85 1-50 Warning Order No.1729/TA Dated 23.9.86 9 23.7.86 2-00 Warning Order No.1728/TA Dated 23.9.87 10 08/10/85 6-00 Service censured Order No.2511/TA Dated 26.12.86 11 8.12.83 24.4.87 8.9.85 12-00 4-00 3-00 Warning Order No.1788/TA Dated 13.7.87 12 31.5.87 36-00 Warning Order No.1419/TA Dated 9.6.87 13 29.10.87 7-00 Fault admitted & warning issued Order No.30/TA Dated 1.1.88 14 29.2.88 2-00 Warning Order No.706/TA Dated 22.3.88 RSA No.2149 of 2010 4 SrNo Date Amount of fraud Punishment awarded Remarks 15 01/02/88 78-98 One increment stopped without cumulative effect and suspension period restricted Order No.3329/TA Dated 14.12.88 16 02/02/89 Conduct or was driving the bus Token recovery of Rs.550/- Order No.1388/TI Dated 28.5.89 17 04/03/89 4-00 Fault admitted and warning issued Order No.1259/TA Dated 14.8.89 18 14.11.90 2-00 Token recovery of Rs.200/- Order No.1519/TA Dated 9.7.94 19 05/07/91 3-00 -do- Order No.180/TA Dated 24.1.92 20 17.12.91 25 Service censured and suspension period restricted Order No.760/TA Dated 21.4.92 21 06/04/92 10-00 Fault admitted, token recovery Rs.700/- Order No.2356/TA Dated 28.10.92 22 27.10.92 42-00 Fault admitted one increment stopped without cumulative effect, suspension period restricted Order No.19/TA Dated 4.1.93 23 22.12.92 8.1.83 36-00 36-00 Fault admitted, two increment stopped without cumulative effect and suspension period restricted Order No.969/TA Dated 26.4.93 24 07/05/93 71-00 Service terminated, suspension period restricted Order No.2016/ECC Dated 9.9.94 25 05/05/95 Reinstated in service by JSTC Haryana, Chandigarh reduce his scale for three years and will not earn increment during reduction period Order No.1384/ECC Dated 5.5.95 26 16.10.96 91-00 Fault admitted, 2 increments stopped without cumulative effect and suspension period restricted Order No.953/TA Dated 12.3.97 27 21.7.98 130-00 Fault admitted, 1 increment stopped with cumulative effect and suspension period restricted Order No.6624/TA Dated 13.11.98 28 07/01/99 18-00 Token recovery of Rs.300/- Order No.2732/TA Dated 28.5.99 29 27.2.99 30-00 2 increment stopped without cumulative effect Order No.3268/TA Dated 8.7.99 30 02/09/99 14-00 Token recovery of Rs.300/- Order No.5730/TA Dated 6.12.99 RSA No.2149 of 2010 5 SrNo Date Amount of fraud Punishment awarded Remarks 31 26.6.2000 37-00 Token recovery of Rs.16/- Order No.2278/TA Dated 25.9.2000 32 28.4.2000 15-00 Token recovery of Rs.750/- Order No.2277/TA Dated 25.9.2000 33 13.11.98 100-00 Token recovery of Rs.2000/- Suspension period restricted ACR down grade Order No.2732/ECC Dated 27.12.2002 34 22.12.07 Ten times Recovery Rs.1500/- Order No.295/TC-II Dated 6.5.2003 35 11/12/03 Refused to do duty Service censured recovery of Rs.300/- Order No.1303/ECC Dated 30.7.04 It may further be mentioned that after his services were terminated on 9.9.1994, he moved an application in the year 1997 stating that if he is taken in service again he would not claim any benefit that is why he did not claim anything during the service tenure but after 2 years of his retirement he filed the present suit. Since the plaintiff does not fulfill all the requirements for awarding the benefits as claimed by him, therefore, both the courts below rightly did not award him any such benefit. The judgments of both the courts below are well reasoned and well founded and do not call for any interference by this court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 20.10.2011 Judge rp