- (1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below dismissing his suit. Plaintiff has retired from service on 7.12.1995.
(2.) Mr. W.R. Dua learned Counsel appearing before me has raised a twofold contention. He submits that the plaintiff was due to cross the efficiency bar on 4.12.1974. However, by an order dated 18.3.1975 he was withheld at the efficiency bar. He was thereafter allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1976 by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana on 11.1.1985. Mr. Dua firstly contended that erroneously the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana allowed him to cross the efficiency bar from 1.2.1976 instead of 4.12.1974. In this regard the lower Appellate Court has found that the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana consciously allowed the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1976 and not due to inadvertence. The relevant observations of the lower Appellate Court are as hereunder: 12. In view of the statement made by DW1 Sunder Lal Chopra, Assistant, Animal Husbandry, Haryana, Chandigarh, an official requires 70% good ACRs for the last ten years, whereas the plaintiff's ACRs for the year 1978-79 was doubtful. He also proved other ACRs i.e. for the year 1966-67 to 1993-94 Ex.D2 to Ex.D26. He further stated that plaintiff was required to cross efficiency bar in the year 1975, but it was allowed only w.e.f. 1.2.1976. DW2 Om Parkash Rathi, Clerk in cross-examination stated that the record from 1966-67 to 1973-74 i.e. for the last ten years was taken into consideration for allowing the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar, whereas plaintiff himself deposed in his support that the cross of efficiency bar should have been w.e.f. 1.4.1974 instead of 1976. A perusal of the Annual Confidential Reports of the plaintiff from 1966-67 to 1973-74 goes to show that this benefit of allowing efficiency bar w.e.f. 4.12.1974 was rightly withheld and that he has failed to prove any enmity with the then Director and allowing the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1976 is not due to inadvertence with regard to date that it should have been as 4.12.1974.
(3.) I however find no merit in the argument raised by learned Counsel for the plaintiff.;