203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-432-2015 DECIDED ON: 13.01.2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. .....APPELLANTS VERSUS RAM SINGH DRIVER .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondent SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. The present Regular Second Appeal preferred by the State of Punjab/defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar and dated 26.08.2014 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the suit has been partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent holding that there is no justification in denying the Annual Grade Increments for the period beginning from

01.12.2000 onwards.

2. Learned counsel has also granted ancillary to the plaintiff alongwith proficiency step-up of 8 and 16 years of service as well as three grade increments during the year 2001 to 2003 to which the plaintiff became entitled.

3. The State of Punjab through the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar challenged the said judgment and decree dated 26.08.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court which in addition to the trial Court decree dated 02.05.2014 who went on to hold further that the plaintiff /respondent cannot be deprived of his entitlement to receive benefit of proficiency step-up after completion of 8 years, 16 years and 24 years solely on the ground that his reports were “Average”, which were not even communicated to the plaintiff/respondent.

4. The appellant-State has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court, urging that the plaintiff/respondent is not entitled to the relief as granted by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar on the following grounds:-

i. Despite having knowledge of the fact that ACRs for the year 1985-86 to 2000-01 were average, who also opted to remain absent from duty during the year 2001-02 and 2002-03, did not make any representation and as such law of estoppel would apply to the civil suit;

(ii) The civil suit has been filed after a period of limitation as for the relief which became due to him in the year 1992 as alleged on completion of eight years, and other reliefs, the suit was instituted on 30.12.2011;

(iii) In any case arrears of pay cannot be legally claimed beyond 38 months preceding to the filing of suit being hit by law of limitation;

5. Before proceeding to the examination of above question of law raised by the State of Punjab-appellant, a magnified understanding of facts involved need to be given a look, which could be culminated as under:-

6. The plaintiff/respondent was working as a Driver with Punjab Roadways, Depot No.2, Jalandhar after his appointment w.e.f. 02.03.1984. His services are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules and instructions issued from time to time by the Administrative Department, Government of Punjab. He retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.05.2008.

7. A notice was served by the plaintiff/respondent dated 13.11.2009 claiming first proficiency step-up on completion of 8 years service in the year 1993 alongwith second proficiency step-up on completion of 16 years of service in the year 2001, clarifying that he was under bona fide mistaken belief that he was appointed as a Driver in the year 1985 but had actually joined the service in the year 1984.

8. The said legal notice was not responded by the appellant-State of Punjab, which resulted into filing of a civil suit for declaration claiming the following:-

a. first proficiency step up after the completion of 8 years of service in the year 1992 b. second proficiency step up in the proficiency step up in the year 2000 after the completion of 16 years of service and c. third proficiency step up in the year 2008 after completion of

24 years of service and d. three annual grade increments during the year 2001 to 2003 with consequential benefits like arrears of pay during servic