IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 672 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 17, 2008 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. ETC. ...... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAMESH CHAND GUPTA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact. The respondent-plaintiff brought a suit for declaration on the averments that he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 11.11.1970 and one Om Parkash Chug was recruited as Upper Division Clerk on 22.6.1971. Om Parkash Chug remained junior to the plaintiff on all posts, however, despite the junior status of Om Parkash Chug, his pay has been fixed above the plaintiff. On the promotional post, the plaintiff was promoted as Commercial Assistant with effect from 21.4.1989, whereas Om Parkash Chug was promoted to the said post on 28.1.1992. The plaintiff also relied on an Office Order dated 25.2.1981 issued by the RSA 672 of 2008 2 erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board, wherein it has been provided that if a junior employee draws pay higher than the senior employee, the pay of the senior employee is required to be raised to that stage. The issue has been dealt with by the first appellate Court in para-11 of its judgment. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute the facts mentioned above. He has further not been able to point out from the material available on the record that at any point of time, the plaintiff was subjected to some penalty which resulted in reduction of his pay. Having regard to the admitted facts that the plaintiff was senior to Om Parkash Chug and yet his pay has been fixed lower than Om Parkash Chug, I do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any evidence which has been perversely read or any relevant material that has been ignored. No substantial question of law as framed in para-11 of the grounds of appeal is made out, for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. March 17, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE