Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Conductor Hardev Singh & Another on 29 March, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Regular Second Appeal No.31 of 2010 (O&M) :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: March 29, 2010
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
...Appellant
VERSUS
Conductor Hardev Singh & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala has filed the present Regular Second Appeal to impugn the judgment passed by the Addl.District Judge, Patiala. Respondent-plaintiff Hardev Singh, who was working as a Conductor, had filed a suit pleading that he was entitled to proficiency step up on completion of 8, 16 and 24 years of service and non-grant of increments for the year 2002-2004 and also to subsequent revision of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 alongwith the arrears with interest @24% per annum.
Regular Second Appeal No.31 of 2010 (O&M) :2:
In the written statement filed, the appellants stated that the case of the Respondent-plaintiff for grant of proficiency step up was under consideration as he was reinstated on duty w.e.f. 11.5.1992 as per the order passed by the Labour Court, after the punishment of dismissal was commuted to stoppage of five increments with permanent effect. It is stated that the punishment of stoppage of increments has wrongly been construed to have been passed w.e.f. 11.5.1992 as otherwise the order of termination, which was passed on 8.3.1988, was commuted to this punishment on the basis of the order passed by the Labour Court. It is also stated that the A.C.Rs. earned by the Respondent-plaintiff were also not upto the criteria, which would have entitled him to claim proficiency step up. By making reference to the case of Budh Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2009(3) SCT 333, the first Appellate Court has taken a view that the amount already paid to the employee cannot be recovered, though the benefit extended to him may be stopped for future.
Counsel for the appellants says that he will not have any dispute with this proposition of law and accordingly this part of the finding given by the first Appellate Court is upheld. However, he will seriously dispute the remaining part of the finding by the first Appellate Court that ACRs, which were not found to be satisfactory, were required to be conveyed to the Respondent-plaintiff and as such the plaintiff was entitled to the increment and other benefits of service w.e.f.8.3.1988.
Counsel for the appellants is justified in making the submission that once benchmark is provided for grant of proficiency Regular Second Appeal No.31 of 2010 (O&M) :3: step up, like that of promotion, the ACRs, which are not coming up to the benchmark as prescribed cannot be taken to be adverse to necessitate the requirement of conveying such reports to the employee concerned. The counsel is further justified in submitting that the punishment of stoppage of five increments could validly be taken into consideration while considering the grant of proficiency step up to the employee. These aspects apparently escaped notice by the first Appellate Court. The view taken by the first Appellate Court that the ACRs having not been conveyed or the punishment would not be required to be taken into consideration for grant of proficiency step up cannot be upheld. This substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this case. As per the instructions laid down, the ACRs were required to be considered before grant of proficiency step up. This part of the impugned judgment by the first Appellate Court, thus, cannot be sustained and is set-aside.
As a result, the present Regular Second Appeal is partly allowed. The part of the direction which had upheld the recovery of the amount, though wrongly paid, is maintained, whereas the remaining part directing the appellants to pay proficiency step up is set-aside. Amended decree be accordingly prepared. It is made clear that the appellants would be at liberty to consider the case of the respondent-plaintiff for grant of proficiency step up in terms of the instructions on the subject by considering his punishment as well as ACRs.
The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
March 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE