R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Director General of Prison, Haryana and another ......Appellants Versus Ram Niwas .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Devinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Ram Niwas filed a suit for declaration challenging the action of the defendants whereby, amount of three increments granted to him in pay scale of Rs.5,000- 7850/- was being deducted from his salary. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he joined as a clerk at District Jail, Hisar in the year 1983 in the pay scale of ` 950-1500/-. In the year, 1999, plaintiff was promoted as Sub Assistant Superintendent in the pay scale of ` 5,000- 7850/- . R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Plaintiff earned three increments after his promotion. Plaintiff was promoted as Accountant on 1.1.2002 in the pay scale of ` 5,000- 7850/-. However, the defendants started deducting three increments already allowed to him, while he was posted as Sub Assistant Superintendent. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff had joined as a clerk and was promoted as Sub Assistant Superintendent on purely temporary basis on 31.12.1998. A condition was imposed that the plaintiff would be liable to be reverted on receipt of the candidates from Haryana Staff Selection Commission. On his request, plaintiff was reverted to the post of clerk on 23.11.2001 and was relieved on 1.12.2001 and he had joined his duty as a Clerk on 3.12.2001. Plaintiff was further promoted as officiating Accountant on 23.11.2001 and joined his post as officiating Accountant on the same day on 3.12.2001. Since the plaintiff had been reverted as a clerk from the post of Sub Assistant Superintendent, the increments released to the plaintiff were liable to be recovered from him as he had drawn excess pay. The basic pay of the plaintiff was liable to be fixed at ` 5,000/- as the pay scale of officiating Accountant was in the scale of ` 5,000- 7850/- . On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the restoration of the three annual increments as alleged? OPP. R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 3 2. If issue No.1 is proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for mandatory injunction, as alleged OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor has any cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly stamped ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed ? OPD 9. Relief. The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2005 and held that the defendants had no right to deduct the amount from the salary of the plaintiff which had been already received by the plaintiff, while working as Sub Assistant Superintendent. The relief claimed by the plaintiff to the effect that he was entitled to get three annual increments restored in the pay scale of ` 5,000- 7850/- was declined. Both the plaintiff and defendants filed appeals against the said judgment and decree. Vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.2007, Additional District Judge, Bhiwani dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 4 and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of three annual increments already granted to him in the pay scale of ` 5,000- 7850/- while he was posted as Sub Assistant Superintendent and the defendants were further restrained from deducting the amount of said three increments and also directed to release the amount already deducted from the pay of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff joined the service of the defendants as a clerk in the year 1983. Plaintiff was promoted as Sub Assistant Superintendent vide order dated 31.12.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.5,000- 7850/-. Admittedly, plaintiff earned three increments after his promotion. The order dated 31.12.1998 was not proved on record by the defendants to establish that the plaintiff was liable to be reverted to his original post on receipt of the candidates from Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was reverted from the post of Sub Assistant Superintendent to the post of clerk at his own request and thereafter, was promoted as an Accountant. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to increments received by him, while he worked as Sub Assistant Superintendent. The letter of request by the plaintiff was R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 5 also not proved on record. Learned Additional District Judge, in these circumstances, rightly held that the increments allowed to the plaintiff could not be withdrawn as the defendants had failed to substantiate their plea. The appellants have placed on record a letter Annexure A-1. The said letter has not been proved on record but a perusal of the said letter reveals that the plaintiff had made a request on 26.6.2001 that he was working on the post of clerk w.e.f 11.10.1983 and had been promoted to the post of Sub Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 1.1.1999. He had more experience on the post of clerk and he may kindly be promoted to one of the posts which was to fall vacant on 1.7.2001 as he was entitled to the same according to his clerical seniority. From this letter it cannot be said that the plaintiff had given his consent for reversion rather the plaintiff had sought promotion to another post which had fallen vacant and the plaintiff was entitled to get the same as per his clerical seniority. The said request was accepted by the defendants. The learned Additional District Judge had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita R.S.A.No. 1788 of 2007 (O&M) 6