RAM SARUP Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) 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 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.

(3.) 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: