Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Krishan Chand Verma on 21 May, 2009
Regular Second Appeal No. 2971 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2971 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.5.2009
***
Punjab State Electricity Board
.. Appellant
VS.
Krishan Chand Verma
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
There is a delay of 28 days in re-filing the instant appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay, as aforesaid, stands condoned.
The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the learned trial Court and the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant Department has led to the institution of the instant regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.
The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit and sought grant of benefit of pay fixation as per para 2(b) of the Circular of the Department dated 15.1.1999 and also claimed that the Department has wrongly withdrawn the benefit of 23 years promotional increments vide order dated 27.5.2002 and have not implemented the punishment of stoppage of five increments in the right manner. It emerges out from the records that in support of his plea of having exercised the option for re-fixation of pay, the plaintiff produced on record the relevant proof (Ex.P4) and also sought Regular Second Appeal No. 2971 of 2007 2 production of documents by the Department, which were executed by him qua fixation of pay, but the Department deliberately did not produce the same before the Court and took a lame excuse that the plaintiff never exercised the option for re-fixation of pay as per Circular dated 15.1.1999 and hence due to with-holding of material documents, an adverse inference was drawn against the Department and the direction to re-fix the pay of the plaintiff was issued. Admittedly, the plaintiff was granted the promotional increments vide order dated 14.5.1997, but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 27.5.2002 and the recovery was also effected on this count, however, it has come on record that prior to withdrawing the said benefit, there was complete derivation to the principles of natural justice by the Department and hence the said order was declared void being passed in violation of the statutory rules and regulations. It has been proved on record that the plaintiff was awarded the punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect, but while implementing the said punishment order, the Department did not extend the benefit of grant of increments for five years whereas it was required to restore the first increment after lapse of one year. In other words, the punishment order was practically given the shape of stoppage of five increments with future effect. Thus, the Courts below rightly concluded that the action of the Department is arbitrary and accordingly it was directed to fix the pay of the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and re-fixation as per Circular No.9/91; to implement the punishment order of stoppage of five increments by restoring the increments after lapse of one year and also to restore the 23 years promotional increment w.e.f. 21.1.1992 by restricting the arrears thereof to the period of 38 months. There is no illegality and perversity in the approach adopted by the Courts below. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one taken by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 21, 2009 Jiten