R.S.A. No.1916 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1916 of 2009 and X-Objection No.1-C of 2010 Date of Decision:08.08.2011 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula ......Appellant Versus Ram Phul and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate, for Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2. Nemo for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that the civil suit filed by Ram Phul son of Siri Ram-respondent No.1-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) against the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board-appellant-defendant(for brevity “the defendant-Board”) and others for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is entitled to protection of pay already enjoyed by him while in service of defendant No.2 before transfer of his service to defendant No.1 and is entitled to ACP scales, was decreed by the trial Court. The plaintiff was held entitled to get his pay re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-7850 w.e.f. 01.05.2000, besides arrears of pay along with interest @ 12% per annum, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007. R.S.A. No.1916 of 2009 2 2. The appeal filed by the defendant-Board was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009. 3. The appellant-defendant Board still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 4. At the very outset, during the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant Board, has placed on record the office order bearing No.Admn.V-2011/610/24360-61 dated 07.04.2011, by means of which, the plaintiff has already been granted 2nd ACP scale in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 7850 w.e.f. 01.05.2000 and 3rd ACP scale in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200+3300 GP w.e.f. 01.05.2010 on completion of 20/30 years regular satisfactory service. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has acknowledged the indicated position. In this view of the matter, the instant appeal becomes infructuous, which is hereby disposed of as such. 5. Be that as it may, however, learned counsel for the defendant-Board has contended with some amount of vehemence that since the matter with regard to the grant of ACP pay scales was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in many appeals, so, there was a plausible reason for it(Board), not to release the ACP grades retrospectively to any employees of different Departments, including the plaintiff. The moment, the matter was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant-defendant Board has already released the benefits to all the eligible employees, without any interest, after completing all the formalities. The argument further proceeds that since no interest was allowed to any of the employees, so, the Courts below have committed a legal mistake in awarding the interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff. 6. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that as the defendant Board has delayed the payment of ACP Grade-II, therefore, even R.S.A. No.1916 of 2009 3 the plaintiff is entitled to more interest than awarded in this context, as he claimed in cross-objection. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the defendant Board is not liable to pay the interest in this respect. What is not disputed here is that, as soon as the indicated matter was finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, ACP grades were released to a number of eligible employees of different Departments of the Government, without any interest. Moreover, since the matter was subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so, it cannot possibly be saith that the defendant Board has illegally or intentionally withheld the release of ACP grades to the employees. Therefore, to my mind, the Courts below have committed a legal error in awarding interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff in this relevant connection. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, while dismissing the appeal as having been infructuous, the impugned judgments and decrees are modified to the extent that since the defendant Board has already released 2nd and 3rd ACP scales to the plaintiff vide order dated 07.04.2011, so, the Board is not liable to pay the interest on such delayed payments. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff are also dismissed as such. Needless to mention here that the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly. August 08, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE