- (1.) Present appeal, at the hands of defendants, is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction, was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in para 2 to 10 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunctions on the allegations that he was appointed as a conductor in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 19.07.1968 and was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 04.02.1992 keeping in view his service record. It was further alleged that plaintiff had completed eight years of service in the cadre of Sub Inspector in the year 2000 and as per the policy of the Corporation, plaintiff became entitled to the Assured Career Progression ("ACP" for short) increment in the year 2000. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was not given ACP increment after completion of eight years of service, but was promoted to the post of Inspector in the scale of Rs.5000/-8100/-w.e.f. 27.06.2001 vide order dated 25.06.2003 and thereafter, plaintiff retired from the post of Inspector on 31.06.2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. It was further alleged that after retirement, plaintiff was served with a show cause notice dated 17.01.2005 asking as to why the proficiency step up which fell due on 04.02.2000 on completion of eight years of service in the cadre of Sub Inspector may not be withheld in view of his service record to which the plaintiff filed reply. However the Additional Managing Director of the Corporation passed order, without granting an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff, which was intimated to him vide letter No.7201 dated 14.03.2005. However, the said order was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It was further alleged that aggrieved with the said order, plaintiff filed CWP No.8549 of 2005 before High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2007 with liberty to avail the remedy of civil suit. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was entitled to the ACP increment in the year 2000 with consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Hence the suit.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants filed separate written statement in which they denied and controverted the claim of plaintiff and took preliminary objections to the effect that suit was not maintainable in the present form, suit was pre-mature as the plaintiff failed to avail an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Managing Director of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation against order dated 14.03.2005, suit was time barred, plaintiff was not entitled for the ACP increment because his two reports out of the last three Annual Confidential Reports ("ACR" for short) were not good as per order No.1277/RTC/Admn. Dated 04.12.2000. On merits, it was admitted that plaintiff was appointed as Conductor on 19.07.1968 and was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 04.02.1992 and thereafter, plaintiff was promoted to the post of Inspector in scale of Rs.5000/ "8100/-w.e.f 27.06.2001. Subsequently, plaintiff retired on 31.08.2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. It was alleged that Lachhman Singh was not entitled for the ACP increment. It was alleged that plaintiff earned 50% of ACR as good but his two reports out of the last three ACRs were not good which were required as per order No.1277/RTC/Admn. dated 04.12.2000. Rest of the allegations were denied being wrong.;