STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT-plaintiff has filed this suit for claiming first higher standard pay scale of Rs. 5000/-on completion of 10 years service, which according to him he satisfactorily completed. The respondent-plaintiff had joined as adhoc employee on 11.09.1985. He accordingly claimed that he had completed 10 years regular satisfactory service on 01.01.1994 but was not granted promotional scale/higher scale in the selection grade. With this grievance he instituted the suit on 14.08.2003 seeking decree and declaration to this effect.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant. It was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement in terms of the instructions quoted in letter dated 08.02.1994. He was in regular service w.e.f. 10.03.1988 and as such had completed 10 years of regular service on 09.03.1998 and thus was entitled to higher standard scale w.e.f. 01.03.1998. It is also pointed out that as per the instructions, the respondent-plaintiff was required to possess 70% of satisfactory ACRs for the relevant period extending from 1985-86 to 1997-98. THE case of the respondent-plaintiff was stated to be under consideration.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit and the plea raised by the State that respondent-plaintiff had earned average report in the ACRs for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1997-98 and the ACRs for the years 1989-90 and 1993-94 being below average could not be treated satisfactory was ignored on the ground that the said ACRs were not produced by the appellant-State for the reasons best known to them. THE appellate Court also noticed that the witness produced by the appellate-State admitted during his cross examination that he could not say that the adverse entries in the years 1988 to 1998 were ever conveyed to the respondent- plaintiff. Accordingly, the prayer made in the suit was allowed and direction was issued to grant higher standard pay scale on completion of 10 years service w.e.f. 01.03.1998. Aggrieved against the same, the State has filed this Regular Second Appeal. During the hearing of the case, the State has moved the Civil Misc. Application for seeking permission to place on record the Annual Confidential Reports of the respondent-plaintiff by way of additional evidence. Another fact which was brought to the notice of the court was that the higher pay scale has already been allowed to the respondent-plaintiff w.e.f. 2002 though the claim in the suit is to grant the same w.e.f. 1998. THE submission is that the respondent- plaintiff did not have 70% of the satisfactory ACR and as such he could rightly be declined the standard pay scale w.e.f. 09.03.1988. Since the relevant ACRs are not placed on record, the prayer was made to lead these by way of additional evidence through C.M. No. 4734-C of 2009.