R.S.A. No.2496 of 1987 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2496 of 1987 Date of decision:29.06.2010. The State of Haryana and another ...Appellants Versus Shri Tilak Raj Assistant ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Both the Courts (the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court) recorded a finding of fact that the salary of the respondent – plaintiff could not have been reduced on account of his promotion. The following are the relevant observations recorded by the learned first Appellate Authority: - “12. Promotion of a Govt. servant cannot result in reduction of his pay. Such an anomalous situation cannot be permitted. Otherwise it would factually amount to demotion. Even otherwise when an official is given another post in the same cadre, the last pay drawn by the official is supposed to be fully protected by treating the difference as personal pay. In Takhtu Ram and others versus Union of India and others, 1986(2) S.L.R. 234, it was held that when on abolition of a post, an official is reverted to the lower grade post, then at the time of his fixation of his pay, difference in the pay of the two posts should be protected as personal pay. The ratio of the case Takhtu Ram and others (supra) would apply to the facts R.S.A. No.2496 of 1987 -2- ***** of the present case. A finding is thus warranted that the impugned order, fixing the basic pay of the plaintiff at Rs.525/- P.M. on his promotion as an Assistant and thereby reducing his basic pay from Rs.620/- to Rs.525/- PM and also the order directing recovery of Rs.1814.45 from the plaintiff, on account of the alleged excess payment made to him, are illegal. So, the finding under issue Nos.1 and 2, recorded by the Ld. Sub Judge, Chandigarh are consequently, hereby, affirmed.” The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. June 29, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE