The High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by an employee seeking additional increment benefits. The court held that the appellant failed to meet the eligibility criteria requiring 70% good Annual Confidential Reports, as his record included average reports during the relevant period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.4962 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4962 of 2011 Date of decision:03.02.2012
Ram Sarup
......Appellant
Vs.
Chief Administrator, HUDA
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration stating that he is entitled for the benefit of additional increment w.e.f. 01.07.1992 alongwith arrears of pay and penal interest at the rate of 18% P.A. from the due date till the actual payment. Further relief of mandatory injunction to pay arrears of pay on account of grant of additional increment alongwith interest at the rate of 18% P.A. was also prayed for. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had joined respondent/HUDA on 30.01.1978, as a regular employee. Thereafter, he earned promotions to the post of Assistant and Deputy Superintendent. In terms of State Government policy, which was applicable to the employees of HUDA, issued vide notification dated 07.08.1992, employees were entitled to additional increment on completion of 8 and 18 years service. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had
RSA No.4962 of 2011 -2-
completed 8 years service in group 'C' without any adverse remarks having been communicated to him and as such he was entitled for the grant of additional increment w.e.f. 01.07.1992. However, such benefit was denied to him in terms of passing of order dated 03.11.2004 by stating that his service record was unsatisfactory. In spite of various representations, since the benefit had not been released to him, accordingly, the suit had been instituted.
Upon notice, the defendant submitted a written statement that the plaintiff had joined service on 17.01.1978 and had lateron promoted as Assistant on 07.03.1983. It was pleaded that the plaintiff did not fulfill the conditions for grant of additional increment in as much as he did not secure 70% good or better ACRs for the last 10 years. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff having been promoted as Assistant and Deputy Superintendent and having thus, earned two promotions, he was not entitled to the benefit of additional increment in terms of the policy dated 07.08.1992. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
RSA No.4962 of 2011
-3-
(5)Relief.
After having heard both the sides and having scanned the evidence led, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff/appellant preferred the civil appeal before District Judge, Karnal and vide judgment dated 05.09.2011 passed by District Judge Karnal, the findings of the trial Court have been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.
I have heard, Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Admittedly, the plaintiff/appellant was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 07.03.1983. Thereafter, for 8 years he did not earn any promotion. Grant of financial benefits upon completion of 8 and 18 years of service is with the sole objective to alleviate stagnation. ACRs of the plaintiff.appellant have been placed on record as Ex. D-2 to Ex. D-17. The period relevant for purpose of determination regarding the claim of the plaintiff/appellant would be 1982-83 to 1991-92. ACRs for the year 1985-86 was recorded as below average by the Accepting Authority yet, it was upgraded as good by the respondent/authority. As such, ACR for the year 1985-86 would have to be treated as good. Ex. D.10 is the ACR for the year 1987-88, which was recorded as B average. Submission raised on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant is to the effect that ACRs which have not been conveyed even though, the same may have been average, will have to be treated as good.
Both the Courts have taken into account the instructions regarding conveyance of average ACRs that were issued at different times. Ex.D-22 were the instructions dated 16.08.1983 vide which it was decided that since the adverse notice is taken of average reports at the time of promotion as
RSA No.4962 of 2011
-4-
also retention in service beyond 50/55 years as such even such average reports should be communicated to the employee concerned so as to enable him/her to make a representation. Thereafter, vide Ex.D-24, the State Government issued letter dated 30.04.1987, wherein, the matter regarding communication of average reports was reconsidered and it was decided that average reports would not be communicated. Such decision was made applicable in respect to ACR for the year 1986-87 and subsequent years. In the light of such amended instructions issued by the State Government, the ACR of the plaintiff/appellant for the year 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1991-92 which even though had not been conveyed could not be treated as good as has been argued by the learned counsel. The concurrent finding of fact returned by both the Courts below is that for the period in question the plaintiff/appellant had earned average reports for the years 1984-85, 198788, 1989-90 and 1991-92. As such out of the 10 ACRs for the relevant period, 4 ACRs of the plaintiff/appellant were average and it has been recorded that he failed to meet the bench mark of possessing 70% good ACRs or better. Accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant has been held to be not entitled for the benefit of financial benefit of additional increment regarding which he had sought a declaration.
The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on due appreciation of evidence i.e. upon perusal of the relevant annual confidential report, the instructions issued by the State Government regarding conveyance of ACRs and the scheme dated 07.08.1992 under which the claim for additional increment was being sought for, I do not find the findings to be perverse or for that matter to be based on any misappreciation of evidence.
RSA No.4962 of 2011
-5-
The present second appeal does not raise any question of law
much less substantial question of law.
The appeal accordingly must fail and is dismissed.
February 03, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE
Note: Whether to be reported? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to additional increment w.e.f. 01.07.1992 as per the policy notification?
Whether the appellant satisfies the condition of possessing 70% good or better Annual Confidential Reports?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Sarup
Chief Administrator, HUDA
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
