SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION 493 of 2003 on 31 December 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Regular Second Appeal No.493 of 2003 (O&M)Date of Decision : 16th May, 2011

Punjab State & others

Jasbir Singh Jandu

Versus

….Appellants

….Respondent

CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

PRESENT : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants.

Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

* * * * *

L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

CM No. 6843-C of 2010

This is application by appellants for condonation of delay of128 days in filing the appeal. Averments made in the application, which aresupported by affidavit, do not satisfactorily explain the aforesaid delay.However, adopting liberal approach, the application is allowed and delay of128 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM No. 6844-C of 2010

Allowed as prayed for

CM No. 6845-C of 2010

This application for additional evidence is dismissed as notpressed.

Main Appeal:

Defendants-Punjab State and its officers are in second appeal,having lost in both the courts below.

Respondent-plaintiff was in the service of defendants andretired on 31.12.1997 as Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in IrrigationDepartment. The plaintiff’s grievance in the suit was regarding non-grant ofstep up increments on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service as SDOw.e.f. 01.01.1996 when the revised pay scales came into force. However,step up increments on completion of 4 and 9 years service were granted tothe plaintiff and the dispute remained regarding grant of step up incrementon completion of 14 years’ service.

Defendants contested the suit and contended that claim ofplaintiff for step up increments on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years ofservice was considered and rejected because FIR No.121 of 1997 stoodregistered with Punjab State Vigilance Bureau. It was pleaded that onaccount of pendency of the said criminal case, plaintiff is not entitled to stepup increments in question. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar videjudgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 decreed the plaintiff’s suit, holdinghim entitled to step up increment on completion of 14 years’ service also inaccordance with revised pay scales as per notification dated 19.05.1998effective from 01.01.1996 and directing the defendants to pay the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears. Defendants preferredfirst appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. Respondent-plaintiff filed cross-objections in the said appeal, claiming interest at higherrate. Learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide common judgmentand decree dated 19.10.2009 dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objections. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant secondappeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thecase file.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that

the plaintiff was promoted as SDO w.e.f. 18.02.1983 and he was onprobation for two years and after he completed probation period on18.02.1985, he did not complete 14 years of service as SDO till hisretirement on 31.12.1997 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to stepup increment on completion of 14 years’ service. The contention iscompletely meritless and unacceptable. In the first instance, no such pleathat probation period of two years shall not count for calculating the lengthof service for grant of step up increment, was taken in the written statementand therefore, this plea can not be raised for the first time in second appeal.On the contrary, in the written statement, it was pleaded that on account ofpendency of FIR No. 121 of 1997, the plaintiff is not entitled to step upincrements. However, the said FIR had not been registered against theplaintiff and had been registered against some other employees andtherefore, plaintiff could not be denied step up increments on account ofpendency of said FIR. Secondly, even on principle, probation period has to be counted to calculate the length of service for step up increments. Thereis no rule or precedent to exclude the probation period for grant of step upincrements on the basis of length of service. On the contrary, this court inJudgment dated 17.05.2007 in RSA No.1444 of 2007 titled Chief SecretaryGovt. of Punjab and others versus Dharam Pal Rishi, upheld thejudgments and decrees of the courts below in that case, counting the serviceof employee from the date of appointment and not from the date ofcompletion of probation period. Said judgment of this court was upheld byHon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing special leave petition preferred byState of Punjab and others vide order dated 21.03.2008 bearing CC No.3884of 2008. Consequently in the instant case also, probation period has also tobe counted for computing the length of service to determine entitlement ofthe plaintiff for step up increment.

However it has to be clarified that plaintiff is entitled to step upincrement on completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 18.02.1997 when hecompleted 14 years’ service as SDO and not w.e.f. 01.01.1996 when therevised pay scales came in to force.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant secondappeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courtsbelow, warranting interference in second appeal. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for determination in this secondappeal. Accordingly, subject to clarification in the preceding paragraph, theinstant second appeal is dismissed.

(L. N. MITTAL)

16[th] May, 2011‘raj’

JUDGE