STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for declaration that he is entitled to the ACP scale and other service benefits was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.3.2007. However, the appellate court vide judgment dated 16.3.2010 accepted the appeal and granted the following relief to the plaintiff :-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff joined the service on 17.3.1981 as Assistant Radiator Repairer. He was removed from the service on 18.12.1992, but was taken back w.e.f. 10.6.1996 pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court with continuity of service and 25% back wages. Since he had completed his eight years of service in the year 1992 and 20 years of regular satisfactory service on 7.1.2001, therefore, he is also entitled to claim benefits of the ACP scales. The award of the Labour Court had become final, consequently he claimed all the benefits as referred to above.

(3.) The plea of the defendant is that the plaintiff was entitled to one additional increment on completing 8 years of satisfactory service in the year 1992, but at that time an enquiry was pending against him and his services had been terminated, therefore, he was not entitled to that benefit. The plaintiff was not entitled to first standard scale w.e.f. 1.2.1994 as he had not completed his 10 years service satisfactorily. As such, he being ineligible was not given the first standard scale of Rs. 1200-2040, as such, his pay was fixed at Rs. 3050/- payable from 1.1.1996. The first standard scale was not given to him as his four years of confidential reports were not good or satisfactory and the second ACP was also not given as he had not completed 20 years of service satisfactorily. It was also averred that due to his bad confidential reports w.e.f. 1992 to 1996, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It was admitted that Joginder Kaushik and Roshan Lal employees had been transferred and had been given promotions rightly but promotion could be given to the plaintiff only if his confidential reports were good and if no enquiry was pending against him under Rule 7 and on attaining the experience of three years but not only on the basis of the seniority and on completion of these requisite conditions, the seniority is considered and if senior employee does not fulfill the requisite condition, then junior employee could be promoted.