KUNDAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court whereby on appeal preferred by the defendants, judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff has been set aside and in accordance thereof, suit of plaintiff dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that plaintiff was working as Clerk under the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kapurthala. In year 1964-65, he was drawing Rs. 120.00 in the grade of Rs. 60-80-120-5-175. Crossing of efficiency bar was due to him on 9.3.1965. It is the case of the plaintiff that the efficiency bar was withheld and he was not given increment due to him. Plaintiff retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1979. Suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, to claim necessary relief was filed on 16.7.1988. Defendants contested the suit on various grounds including that it is not within limitation. Trial Court on basis of evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, came to the conclusion that defendants were to decide the case of plaintiff for crossing efficiency bar before 9.3.1965 but it was not decided. In regard to the contention of the defendants that the case of the plaintiff was decided on 20.11.1972, trial Court held that the defendants have not been able to prove that the said order was ever conveyed to the plaintiff. It also held that order regarding crossing of efficiency bar w.e.f. 9.3.1965 could not have been passed in the year 1972 and as such, order passed in the year 1972 is totally illegal and not binding on the rights of plaintiff. In regard to the objection of the suit not being within limitation, trial Court held that order dated 20.11.1972 being non-speaking and retrospective in nature, is without jurisdiction. It also held that representation of the plaintiff was finally rejected by the Department on 15.4.1988 as is evident from letter, Ex. P-17, and the suit filed on 16.7.1988 was well within limitation from the last order passed by the defendants. Trial Court, thus, decreed the suit and held plaintiff to be entitled to refixation of his pay at every step-in-service and in each grade considering his basic pay at Rs. 125.00 on 9.3.1965. Plaintiff was also held entitled to refixation of his pension. Simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of arrears found due too was granted. However, in appeal by the defendants, the Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of plaintiff solely on the ground that the same was barred by time. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(3.) It is now well-settled that an order stopping the employee's efficiency bar should be by a speaking order and sufficient reasons should be given so that the employee, if he so desires, may make a representation against the same. A decision not to allow the crossing of efficiency bar is also required to be taken on the basis of record of the employee concerned. In the present case, the employee was to cross efficiency bar on 9.3.1965 and the A.C.R. for the year 1964-65 was very relevant for this purpose. It has further been conceded by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants that the plaintiff was not allowed to cross efficiency bar because his A.C.R. for the year 1964-65 was not traceable. During the course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel was also unable to show from the record the A.C.R. for the year 1964-65. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, in absence of the A.C.R. for the year 1964-65, trial Court has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that the action of the defendants in not allowing the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar, on 9.3.1965, was illegal.