RSA No.132 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Regular Second Appeal No.132 of 2009 Decided on : March 30, 2009 Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and another ... Appellant VERSUS Dr.T.R.Kapoor ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University through its Registrar – defendants/ appellants (herein referred as `appellants') have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, decreeing the suit of Dr.T.R.Kapoor – plaintiff/ respondent (herein referred as `respondent'). RSA No.132 of 2009 [ 2 ] Having scrutinised the judgments of the courts below, it deserves notice that the appellants in their written statement categorically admitted that pay scales of the employees including the respondent were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the respondent was granted the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 with effect from the said date. This fact is also not in controversy that the annual increment of the respondent was due in the month of January. There is no denying a fact that the respondent was drawing salary at the 11th stage in the pay scale of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 as on 1.1.1996 and there is a provision for grant of one more increment i.e, an additional increment to the employees, who were drawing salary at the 11th stage of a pay scale. However, the appellants have been refusing to fix the salary of the respondent as Rs.15,780/- as on 1.1.1996 on the ground that he did not exercise his option in pursuance of letter dated 8.5.2002 (Ex.D-10), but this court is of the view that non-exercise of the option by the respondent in pursuance of the letter (Ex.D-10) would make no difference, because if he had not exercised this option, even then the same would also ipso facto become applicable to him. An employee could be affected only if he wanted to remain in the existing scale and would not have exercised the option in pursuance of the letter dated 8.5.2002 (Ex.D-10). Clause 23 of the Terms and Conditions of the employees of the appellant – University (Ex.D-6) shows that if option is not exercised within the prescribed time, then, the employee shall be deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised scale of pay on and from 1.1.1996. The lower Appellate Court appears to have elaborately RSA No.132 of 2009 [ 3 ] considered the matter and drawn the right conclusion. No different view than what has been formed by the two courts below could be formed. All the issues appear to have been properly discussed and decided as per record. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the case. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. March 30, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE