R.S.A. No. 3354 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3354 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.3.2009 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Champa Devi ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 10029-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. It has been averred in the application that the delay has occurred due to legal and administrative procedures. Notice of C.M. was issued. The learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the application. Consequently, the C.M. is allowed and the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. R.S.A. No. 3354 of 2008 (O&M) -2- R.S.A. No. 3354 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent has been partly decreed. The plaintiff, who is widow of deceased employee of the appellant, sought declaration with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming benefit of additional increment to her late husband from 1.1.1991, higher pay scale from 1.1.1994, in addition she claimed ACP scales as well as modified ACP scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, and thus sought the revision of pension by fixing the salary in accordance with law. The suit was opposed primarily on the ground that additional increment and higher pay scales to which claim was laid, already stood paid to during the life time of deceased employee. The claim to ACP scale as well as modified ACP scale was objected to primarily on the ground that though the same was ordered to be granted w.e.f. 1.1.1996, notification in this regard was issued only in the year 2004 i.e. after the death of the deceased employee and, therefore, had no application to his case, as it could not have retrospective operation. Both the Courts below rejected the plea raised by the appellant/defendants, and have held that plaintiff was entitled to the ACP scales as modified for the purposes of fixing the salary on the date of death of husband of the plaintiff and held that he was entitled to revised pension. However, the arrears were restricted to three years and two months. R.S.A. No. 3354 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the amended/revised circular dated 23.2.2004 Ex. P-1/1 regarding modified ACP scale could apply restrospectively to an employee who was not in service on the date of issuance of said notification? In support of the substantial question of law, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is, that admittedly the employee died on 9.6.1998 i.e. much prior to issuance of the circular, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief claimed, as the notification could not have retrospective effect. However, this plea cannot be accepted. The contention on the face of it looks attractive, as it is settled law that the circular and instructions issued by the Government, have no retrospective effect and apply prospectively, but in the present case, revised scales were made operative with retrospective effect. The circular itself was given retrospective effect and, therefore, the employees who were in service on 1.1.1996 were entitled to the benefit under the said circular, even though issued in the year 2004. The learned Courts below rightly held that plaintiff was entitled to benefit of circular to decree the suit. The substantial question of law framed is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 24, 2009 R.S.