C.C.S. HAU HISSAR Vs. UDEY CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent who has been an employee of the defendant-appellant University is entitled to the benefits of increments as envisaged in the policy of the Government dated 24.10.1990, Ex. P-35. It is appropriate to mention that the aforementioned policy was adopted by the defendant-appellant University by order Ex. D-2, dated 28.11.1994.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent is an eminent sports person. After serving in the Indian Army from 1953 to 1970 he joined the defendant-appellant University in 1970 as a Wrestling Coach. He rose to the position of Assistant Sports Officer and retired in June, 1995. When the policy of the State Government came to the notice of the plaintiff-respondent he filed representations claiming incentives of five increments. However, his representations were rejected on 29.9.1998 by the defendant-appellant University. The aforementioned order was made subject matter of challenge by the plaintiff-respondent in the suit claiming a declaration that the aforementioned order was totally arbitrary and illegal. He further sought the relief of consequential benefits that he was entitled to arrear of the increments from the date of issuance of those instructions till the date of his retirement on 30.6.1995. It was further claimed that his retrial benefits be also re-fixed.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff-respondent had participated in the National and International events which include Olympic Games, World Championship, Common Wealth and Asian Games. He was awarded Arjuna Award as the first Indian Wrestler by the President of India in 1962. After joining the service of the defendant-appellant University, the plaintiff-respondent had won a gold medal in the Common Wealth Games held in July, 1970. The argument of the defendant-appellant University that he had not won a gold medal after joining service of the University was rejected. On the basis of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pyare Lal v. Chief Secretary to Government Haryana and others, 1996 2 SCT 142 both the Courts below have held that the benefit of the instructions dated 24.10.1990 cannot be confined to those persons who had achieved the prescribed distinction prior to the issuance of the instructions. The plea of delay in filing the suit has also been repelled. The view of the lower Appellate Court is discernible from para 13 of the judgment, which reads as under :