- (1.) CM No.14988-C of 2011: This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. In view of averments made in the application, application is allowed and delay of 4 days in filing the instant second appeal is condoned.
(2.) RSA No.5143 of 2011: The State of Punjab, appellant/defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking the declaration of the effect that the order dated 10.02.2003 treating his suspension period as leave of the kind due to be illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and having been based against the principle of natural justice. Plaintiff/respondent further prayed that he was also entitled to the proficiency step up benefits on completion of 8 years of service but the same had also been denied to him. It was pleaded in the suit that he joined as Excise and Taxation Officer on 15.04.1991. A false case was registered against him under Section 304 Part-II IPC for which he stood trial. Meanwhile, the plaintiff/respondent has been placed under suspension vide order dated 22.02.1994. Upon acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, he was reinstated vide order dated 27.06.1996. The plaintiff/respondent submitted a representation dated 18.12.2000 for treating the suspension period as duty period for all intent and purposes. However, vide order dated 10.02.2003, the suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due. It was also categorically averred that no show cause notice has been served upon the plaintiff/respondent prior to the passing of order dated 10.02.2003 and as such the action was contrary to the principle of natural justice.
(3.) Suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by the trial court and order dated 10.02.2003 to the extent of treating the suspension period as leave of the kind due and not treating the same as duty period and further for not making payment of remaining arrears of the suspension period and also denial of the proficiency step up benefit on completion of 8 years of service, was held to be illegal, null and void. The trial Court held that the suspension period is to be treated as duty period, the plaintiff/respondent was held entitled for remaining arrears of suspension period alongwith interest @6% P.A. from the date of suit till recovery. Still further, the plaintiff was also entitled to recovery of arrears for 8 years proficiency step up w.e.f. 15.04.1999 with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of suit till payment.;