The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two second appeals arising from a suit regarding salary increments and retrial benefits for a government employee. The court held no substantial question of law arose as the first appellate court had granted appropriate relief.
Both appeals were dismissed without allowing the claims of either party.
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.
RSA No. 2597 of 2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) RSA No. 2597 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: January 30, 2013
K.L. Kohli
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(2) RSA No. 439 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: January 30, 2013
State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
K.L. Kohli
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No. 2597 of 2003 and for the respondent in RSA No. 439 of 2004.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent in RSA No. 2597 of 2003 and for the appellant in RSA No. 439 of 2004.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
This order of mine would dispose of the above mentioned two Regular Second Appeals as the same have arisen out of the common judgement dated 4.1.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
The facts, in brief, are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ' the plaintiff' ) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to (1) two proficiency step-up increments w.e.f. 1.1.1986; (2) annual increment in the master scale on 1.1.1987; (3) further annual
RSA No. 2597 of 2003
2
increments in the master scale w.e.f. 1.1.1988 w.e.f. 1.1.1989 respectively; (4) ex-gratia increments on 1.1.1990, 1.1.1991 and 1.1.1992 respectively; (5) further ex-gratia increments on 1.1.1993 and 1.1.1994 respectively; (6) arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and (7) retrial benefits on the basis of his pay of Rs. 7300/- or the enhanced ceiling fixed in the master scale w.e.f. the date on which he is actually relieved from his post. His suit was dismissed by the trial court, but in appeal, the first appellate court partly decreed the suit the held that he would be entitled to claims, mentioned in sub heads No. 1, 2 and 3 and dismissed the suit qua claims made in sub-heads 4,5, 6 and 7. Hence the present appeals.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
It appears that well reasoned judgment has been passed by the first appellate court. The relief, which were appropriate and for which the plaintiff was entitled, was granted and there is no further scope for grant of ex-gratia increments or otherwise in the presence of the relief with regard to proficiency step ups and annual increments having been granted to him alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
No substantial questions of law arise for determination. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid observation, I also see no reason in the appeal filed by the appellant as such the same is also dismissed.
January 30, 2013 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal by the State was maintainable given the grant of appropriate relief by the first appellate court with interest.
K.L. Kohli
State of Punjab
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
