Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh Son Of Bachan Singh vs The Bhakra Beas Management Board on 8 August, 2012
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.08.2012.
Charan Singh son of Bachan Singh, Regular T-Mate, resident of Qr.
No.SW-1, B.B.M.B. Colony, Kotla Power House, Tehsil Anandpur
Sahib, District Ropar.
...Petitioner
versus
The Bhakra Beas Management Board, through its Chairman, Sector
19-C, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit
Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Bali,
Senior Advocate, for respondent 2 and 4.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The revision is against the order passed by the Executing Court recording the fact that except for the period from 07.11.1990 to 06.12.1993, there had been a complete accord and satisfaction. The decree holder was entitled to get his pay during the said period through the decision of the departmental competent authority and if he was still dissatisfied with the same, he could get his remedy Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -2- under the law for such period. It had also directed that the Electricity Board released the arrears to the decree holder qua his salary as becoming due as per the judgment and decree, if it was not released. The decree holder could apply to the Court giving the details of his claim. Feeling dissatisfied with the manner of disposal, the decree holder is in revision before this Court.
2. The suit had been filed at a time when the petitioner was still a T-mate complaining that he had been denied the right of promotion to the post as Assistant Lineman (ALM). He was seeking for the relief that he was entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors had been promoted. The suit was filed on 15.06.1989 and he sought for the relief that he should be placed above defendants 5 to 15. The suit had been decreed on 28.03.1995 and the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the next rank/post as ALM or similar post in the same grade/pay scale. The Court held that after trial, promotion order issued on 28.03.1989 to defendants 6, 11 and 13 without promoting the petitioner, who was senior to them, was illegal. The judgment provided that he would be entitled to "all the allowances attached to the promotion post from the date of promotion which will be above defendants No.6, 11 and 13 and for proper assigning the place in the seniority list of the A.L.M. over and above the names of defendants No.6, 11 and 13 or to any salary and other privileges and amenities which have accrued or will accrue in future to the plaintiff." (sic). Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -3- The execution application appears to have been filed by the decree holder on 28.03.1995 and it was disposed of as late as on 23.05.2002, which is the subject of revision before this Court.
3. The point that has to be seen is whether the decree holder can complain of decree as still being unsatisfied subsequent to the disposal of the suit. It is admitted that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of ALM vide order dated 30.03.2001 w.e.f. 07.01.1983. However, even during the pendency of the suit itself, the plaintiff's claim was conceded by the defendant when an order was issued promoting him as ALM on 22.06.1990. Consequent to the order of promotion, he was transferred and relieved from Ganguwal on 01.11.1990. The plaintiff's grievance was, therefore, fully redressed but the plaintiff did not accept the promotion post and join the service. Instead, he filed an application for injunction in the trial Court itself that the order giving him promotion shall not be given effect, since the order purported to give effect only from the date of suit, when the plaintiff was claiming that he was entitled to be treated and promoted from the year 1970 itself. This, according to the judgment debtor, completely disentitled the decree holder to claim the salary admissible for the promotion post since he had literally denied himself the right which was accorded to him. It was further contended that he could not ask for computation of salary for the promotion post which did not occupy inspite of an express order being issued to him. The application for injunction Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -4- was dismissed on 20.04.1991 and he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar on 14.08.1993. He filed a Civil Revision No.2979 of 1993 where he was said to have pressed for a contention for the first time that the respondents were not allowing him to join the duty. The counsel for the Electricity Board stated in Court that they had never objected the petitioner's joining the duty but the petitioner himself had come to Court for a restraint against the enforcement of the promotion order. The civil revision appears to have been dismissed on 15.12.1993 as having become infructuous, when he joined duty in the promotion post at D.S. Division, Rupnagar on 07.12.1993.
4. In a case where the decree holder was literally denying to himself the benefit of promotion during the pendency of the suit, he cannot have a calculation made as though he was entitled to salary in the promotion post from the date when he was deemed to be promoted. Since the suit was instituted on 28.03.1989 and since an order was issued by the judgment debtor subsequent to the decree again finding him to be entitled to the post as ALM w.e.f. 07.01.1983, the salary ought to have been paid for the promotion post for a period of 3 years prior to the institution of the suit. The right of securing a salary to the post as ALM therefore arose from 28.03.1986. If the decree holder was denying to himself the benefit of joining the promotion post from 01.11.1990 by filing his own petition on a wrong assumption that when the order did not give Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -5- him a retrospective date of promotion, he would not join the post. I would hold that he would be disentitled only from the date when he declined to take up the promotion post through the order issued on 01.11.1990. The salary from 3 years prior to the institution of the suit from 28.03.1986 to 31.10.1990, the decree holder was surely entitled to the salary for the promotion post, consistent with the endorsement made on 01.11.1990 entitling him to the promotion post and consistent with the order passed by the Central Government on 30.03.2001, that is, subsequent to the passing of the decree that the promotion was being given effect from 07.01.1983. This portion of salary could not have been denied to the petitioner.
5. From the details given in the CM filed by the respondents, it is evident that after the disposal of the Civil Revision in 2979 of 1993, the petitioner had joined the promotion post at D.S. Division, Rupnagar on 07.12.1993. From the date when the promotion order was issued on 01.11.1990 till the date when he actually joined on 07.12.1993, if the petitioner had not joined the duty in the promotion post nor did he continue as T-mate, the question of availing of salary does not arise. He will be entitled to make suitable representation to the Management to treat said period as leave and if the rules permit, the same may be treated as leave of the kind due.
6. The petitioner's grievance is that even his juniors have been drawing higher pension and his own pension has not been Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -6- worked out correctly by properly giving to him the benefit of increase in the promotion post. Since the decree already provides for a right to be promoted with all consequential benefits, I would hold that barring the period when the petitioner denied to himself the promotion post, that is, from 01.11.1990 to 07.12.1993, he shall be fixed in the salary notionally in the post as ALM from 07.01.1983 in terms of the order dated 30.03.2001 and fix the pension accordingly.
7. In sum, the decree holder shall be paid the following sums: (i) arrears of salary being the difference payable for the scale admissible to the post as ALM and the salary payable to a T-mate from 28.03.1986 to 31.10.1990; (ii) fix the scales of pay for ALM from 07.01.1983 notionally and release the same and (iii) determine the last pay drawn on such basis and calculate the pension admissible to the petitioner corresponding to the last pay that he was entitled to draw. The calculation shall be made and communicated to the plaintiff within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The payment shall also be released within a period of 4 weeks from the said date.
8. The execution petition shall be treated as pending and full satisfaction will be recorded only on the amounts being released. If there is non-compliance with the directions given above, the decree holder shall be entitled to apply to the Court by providing his own memorandum of calculation worked out on the basis referred to above and seek for recovery of money by attachment or arrest in the Civil Revision No.4700 of 2002 (O&M) -7- manner admissible by law under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
9. The order of the Executing Court is modified and the civil revision is allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.08.2012 sanjeev