RSA No.3720 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.3720 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.10.2008
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
and others .....Appellants
Vs.
D.N. Gupta ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr.Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.
….
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
CM No.10438-C of 2007
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 47 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.3720 of 2007
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit praying for grant of a
decree for declaration, in essence, praying that he be placed to the same pay
scale as his junior Baldev Singh, who by grant of the benefit of the ACP
scheme, was drawing a higher salary. The respondents opposed this prayer
by asserting that grant of a pay scale, equal to the pay scale being drawn by
Baldev Singh, would in essence, lead to the grant of a second benefit to the
appellant under the ACP Scheme. As grant of a second benefit under the
scheme is not permissible, the respondent cannot be granted this benefit.
RSA No.3720 of 2007 2
On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following
issues :-
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 2nd ACP scale of
Rs.5450-8000 from 1.1.1996 with consequential
benefits ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD.
5. Relief.”
After considering the entire dispute, the learned trial Court
decreed the suit by rejecting the appellants contention that by grant of parity
to the respondent in accordance with the pay scale being drawn by his
junior, the respondent would be granted a second benefit under the ACP
Scheme. It was held that the respondent’s claim was, in essence, a claim for
parity in the pay scale being drawn by his junior.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the
appellants filed an appeal. The District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed the
appeal by affirming the findings returned by the trial Court.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have
granted a second benefit under the ACP scheme. The respondent joined as a
Lower Division Clerk, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and is now
working as Commercial Assistant. The impugned judgements and decrees,
RSA No.3720 of 2007 3
in essence, grant a second benefit under the ACP Scheme, which is
impermissible. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgements and decrees
passed by the Courts below be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that
though the respondent may have prayed for grant of a second benefit under
the ACP Scheme, his prayer is in essence for grant of the pay scale, being
drawn by his junior. It is submitted that as both the Courts below have held
that the respondent was senior to Baldev Singh, they rightly accepted the
claim for grant of the same pay scale as being paid to Baldev Singh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgements.
Both the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have
concurrently held that Baldev Singh though junior to the respondent is
drawing a salary in a higher pay scale than the respondent. As a result, the
Courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit. The respondent
cannot be placed in a scale lower to that of his junior. As no question of
law, much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication, the appeal
is dismissed.
24.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE