Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sawarn Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2006
JUDGMENT P.S. Patwalia, J.
1. This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below dismissing his suit. Plaintiff has retired from service on 7.12.1995.
2. Mr. W.R. Dua learned Counsel appearing before me has raised a twofold contention. He submits that the plaintiff was due to cross the efficiency bar on 4.12.1974. However, by an order dated 18.3.1975 he was withheld at the efficiency bar. He was thereafter allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1976 by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana on 11.1.1985. Mr. Dua firstly contended that erroneously the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana allowed him to cross the efficiency bar from 1.2.1976 instead of 4.12.1974. In this regard the lower Appellate Court has found that the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana consciously allowed the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1976 and not due to inadvertence. The relevant observations of the lower Appellate Court are as hereunder:
12. In view of the statement made by DW1 Sunder Lal Chopra, Assistant, Animal Husbandry, Haryana, Chandigarh, an official requires 70% good ACRs for the last ten years, whereas the plaintiff's ACRs for the year 1978-79 was doubtful. He also proved other ACRs i.e. for the year 1966-67 to 1993-94 Ex.D2 to Ex.D26. He further stated that plaintiff was required to cross efficiency bar in the year 1975, but it was allowed only w.e.f. 1.2.1976. DW2 Om Parkash Rathi, Clerk in cross-examination stated that the record from 1966-67 to 1973-74 i.e. for the last ten years was taken into consideration for allowing the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar, whereas plaintiff himself deposed in his support that the cross of efficiency bar should have been w.e.f. 1.4.1974 instead of 1976. A perusal of the Annual Confidential Reports of the plaintiff from 1966-67 to 1973-74 goes to show that this benefit of allowing efficiency bar w.e.f. 4.12.1974 was rightly withheld and that he has failed to prove any enmity with the then Director and allowing the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1976 is not due to inadvertence with regard to date that it should have been as 4.12.1974.
3. I however find no merit in the argument raised by learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
4. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana consciously allowed the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar from 1.2.1976. I therefore agree with the view taken by the lower Appellate Court.
5. There is another aspect of the matter. The Courts below have noted that the suit had been filed in August, 1999 to challenge order dated 11.1.1985. Therefore the challenge to the said order was held to be barred by limitation. I concur with the view taken by the Courts below. The suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1999 was clearly barred by limitation.
6. The only other contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the plaintiff should be granted the benefit of two increments as a result of his passing M.Sc. course in September, 1971 for his entire service period rather than for 5 years only. The Courts below have found that the increments were granted as per instructions dated 26.9.1972 and as per subsequent instructions dated 20.6.1977 the benefit would be extinguished after 5 years. The trial Court has rejected this plea as hereunder:
As per instructions vide letter dated 26.9.1972, Ex.D32 the two advance increments were given on passing of master degree. These instructions have to be read with instructions issued in letter dated 20.6.1977, Ex.D29 and as per this letter the benefit of personal pay shall be extinguished after five years for which it is granted and after five years the benefit of two increments was extinguished in view of this letter. Moreover the condition No. 10 of this letter shows that benefit of personal pay will not be available to Class-I officers. However, if a Class-II officer acquires such a qualifications and becomes eligible for the grant of personal pay, this benefit will ceases on his becoming Class-I Officer and in view of this condition also when the plaintiff became SDO he was not eligible for personal pay benefit. Moreover this was incentive by the government to its employees to spread more education and five years was sufficient time....
7. This finding has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court as hereunder:
As regards grant of two increments to the plaintiff in view of instructions dated 26.9.1972 Ex.D32 and another letter dated 20.6.1977 Ex.D29 this relief, as discussed by the learned trial court, has already been given to the plaintiff....
8. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been given all due benefits as a result of his having passed M.Sc. course and nothing more is due to him.
9. There is no merit in this plea as well.
10. No other contention was raised.
11. I therefore find no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.