Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009. (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.1.2009
***
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
.. Appellants
VS.
Balbir Singh
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
This is defendants’ regular second appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and
consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming the benefit of pay
protection, maintenance of seniority, grant of earned leave and the benefit of
service rendered by him on work charge basis towards retiral benefits.
It is apt to mention here that all the relief, except pay
protection, were granted to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
With regard to the relief sought qua pay protection, the learned
trial court as well as first Appellate Court below, on the basis of admissions
made by DW.2 N.K. Bhateja, Section Officer to the effect that the plaintiff
is entitled to re-fixation of his basic pay as Rs.1760/- from pre-revised pay
of Rs.850/- which was not given to him as well as entries in the service
record of the plaintiff coupled with other evidence, concurrently held that
the plaintiff is entitled to protection of his pay @ Rs.850/- w.e.f. 15.1.1986
i.e. the date of his joining as J.E. and consequentially the plaintiff was
further held entitled to the increment and ACP on the basis of revised pay
scale. Although, an attempt was made to say that the suit of the plaintiff was
not within limitation, but the learned First Appellate Court below while
Regular Second Appeal No. 261 of 2009 2
appreciating the law on the subject and the fact that the plaintiff was not
paid the salary to which he actually is entitled, rightly held that recurring
cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff every month and delay and
latches cannot come in his way of getting the said relief, but the arrears can
be restricted to a reasonable period and hence while relying upon the case of
Saroj Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1998(5) SLR 266, the plaintiff
was rightly held entitled, by the learned First Appellate Court below, to the
arrears of 38 months preceding the date of filing of the suit and onwards, by
modifying the judgment of the learned trial court which speaks about grant
of complete arrears. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below is either illegal or
perverse. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for
admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and
the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
January 15,2009
Jiten