REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 07, 2010 Vidya Devi Sharma .....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N. D. S. Mann, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed to impugn the judgment of lower Appellate Court by framing following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- “1. Whether the orders of promotions of the plaintiff- appellant as a Head Teacher passed by the defendant- respondents in the years 1987 and 1991 were not wrong and illegal in view of the admitted position that the seniority of the plaintiff-appellant had to be counted with effect from 9.12.1968 and not from any earlier date? REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: 2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant could be made to suffer adverse consequences by declining promotions offered to her in the years 1987 and 1991which promotions admittedly and undeniably were wrong and illegal and on the basis of her seniority from wrong date i.e. 16.8.1965 instead of correct date 9.12.1968? 3. Whether the orders passed by the defendant- respondents debarring the plaintiff-appellant for promotions for two years on each of the two occasions in 1987 and 1991 were not wrong and illegal when the defendant-respondents had themselves ultimately fixed the seniority of the plaintiff-appellant at Serial No.230A by changing the seniority from Serial No.60 to Serial No.230-A by admitting that the seniority of the plaintiff- appellant had to be counted from 9.12.1968 and not from 16.8.1965? 4. Whether in view of the admitted position that the plaintiff-appellant could not be promoted as a Head Teacher prior to 2002 and she was rightly legally and validly promoted as a Head Teacher for the first time on 28.3.2003, whether the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to get proficiency step ups on completi8on of 8, 18 and 23 years of service? 5. Whether the orders passed by the defendant- respondents debarring the plaintiff-appellant for promotions for two years were not wrong and illegal besides being unjustified? REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: 6. Whether the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to all the benefits of proficiency step ups as claimed by her and with all consequential benefits alongwith interest for the deficiency in payment made to her? 7. Whether the defendant-respondents could effect any recovery from the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of their wrong and illegal orders? 8. Whether the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur were not wrong, perverse, erroneous and were not liable to be set-aside? 9. Whether the orders dated 31.1.2002 and 1.4.2002 were not wrong and illegal as the same were based on the wrong seniority of the plaintiff-appellant which was counted with effect from 16.8.1965 instead of 9.12.1968? 10.Whether the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur had set-aside the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court on wholly untenable premises and without meeting grounds laid down by the learned trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant? I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State. The short and crisp grievance raised by the appellant in the suit was that she was wrongly declined proficiency step up in the years 1987-88, 1991 and then 2000 on the ground that an offer of promotion was made to her, which she declined. The case set up by the appellant is that on transfer from Kangra to State of Punjab at REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: Hoshiarpur, she was wrongly assigned seniority with effect from 1965 whereas she was entitled to count her service with effect from 1968, the date when she joined at Hoshiarpur. As per the record, the seniority list issued on 1.1.1985 showed the name of the appellant at Sr.No.390. Accordingly, her name appeared at Sr.No.60 in the said seniority list issued in the year 1997. On a repeated representations made by the appellant, her seniority was changed in the year 2001 and she went down at Sr.No.230-A of the seniority list. It is on this basis the appellant has set up her entire case for grant of proficiency step up in the year 1987 and subsequently in the year 1998 on completion of 8-18 years of service. Concededly, the proficiency step up due to the appellant in the year 1987 has now been granted. Mr.Mann has made a statement during the course of arguments on the basis of record maintained in the service book, which is not in dispute. It is, thus, to be seen whether the action on the part of the appellant in declining promotion, when it was offered to her would dis-entitle her for the grant of proficiency step up or not. The offer of promotion indeed was made to her. Strangely, it is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that she declined promotion on the ground that she was not entitled to it. Once the offer of promotion was made, which the appellant declined, she certainly would not be able to ask for proficiency step up. Proficiency step up is to be granted to those employees, who continued to remain in the same pay scale without grant of opportunity of promotion. An opportunity of promotion indeed was granted to the appellant, which may be wrong or right. It was not for her to decline promotion on the ground that it was not due to her REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: once the Department has made her offer for promotion. In view of this factual position, none of the substantial question of law framed by the appellant, as noted above, would arise in this case. In fact, this case is purely on the basis of facts pleaded in the case and no substantial question of law indeed would arise, which would require consideration by this Court in a Regular Second Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. January 07,2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE