IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3391 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.10.2008 Madan Lal .....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant challenges judgement and decree dated 5.6.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge,Jind, partly accepting the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and, therefore, partly reversing the judgement and decree dated 11.10.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind. The State of Haryana issued instructions dated 14.5.1991 and 8.12.1994 granting the benefit of one additional increment to all Group`C' and `D' categories employees after completion of 10 and 20 years of satisfactory service. The appellant filed a suit claiming increment in terms of the aforementioned instructions, by alleging that this benefit had not been granted to him. The respondents opposed the suit by controverting the averments in the plaint, alleging that the appellant had earned adverse reports for the years 1987-88, 1991-92 and 1996-97, he was not entitled to any benefit under the instructions. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to additional RSA No.3391 of 2006 -2- increment w.e.f. 1.1.1991 ? OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to first and second higher standard scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994 ? OPP. 3. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice ? OPD. 8. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence on record and the arguments addressed by counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge,Jind, partly accepted the appeal by holding that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of one additional increment which is required in terms of letter dated 14.5.1991 but would not be entitled to any additional increment in terms of letter dated 8.2.1994 as during the latter period, he had earned adverse reports. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court held that as the report for the year 1987-88 was conveyed to the appellant RSA No.3391 of 2006 -3- after more than 1.1/2 years and as the reports for the years 1991-92 and 1996-97 were not conveyed, they could not be pressed into consideration, while denying benefit of the instructions dated 8.2.1994. The first appellate Court, wrongly reversed these findings by holding that as the reports had been conveyed, they could not be disregarded. It is submitted that as there was inordinate delay in conveying the adverse reports, the first appellate Court was not justified in holding that the adverse reports had to be taken into consideration, while assessing the appellant's service record. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that as admittedly, the adverse reports were communicated to the appellant, the first appellate Court, rightly placed reliance thereon to reject the appellant's claim. It is further submitted that as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. Admittedly, for the year 1987-88, the appellant earned an adverse report for “integrity doubtful”, which was conveyed to him, vide letter dated 2.8.1989 Ex.D-2. Similarly, the appellant earned adverse reports for the years 1991-92 and 1996-97. These adverse reports were conveyed to the appellant is evident from receipts Ex.D-5 to D-7. While considering the claim of an employee under the instructions, the concerned authority is required not merely to examine the length of service but his “satisfactory service record”. The adverse reports, were therefore rightly considered as sufficient to deny benefit to the appellant. As no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 23.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) sk JUDGE