RSA-287-2015 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Manjit Singh Pepsu Road Transport CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 extent of relief w was partly decre 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980. He filed civil suit for his pay fixation and for annual increment. The civil learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala 04.12.2013. He challenged the same before learned District Judge, Patiala, who IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-287- Date of Decision vs. epsu Road Transport Corpn. through its Chairman and ors. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the Mr. S.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the respondent **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala which was not granted, since the eed. Further, the appeal against the judgment and decree dated passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated Brief facts of the case as per civil appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980. He filed civil suit for his pay fixation and for annual increment. The civil suit filed by him was partly allowed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated . He challenged the same before learned District Judge, Patiala, who IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA -2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 ......Appellant hrough its Chairman and ors. …..Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA or the appellant. respondents. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to judgment and passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala, to the e civil suit filed by the appellant e appeal against the judgment and decree dated passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated suit are that the appellant was appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980. He filed civil suit for his pay fixation suit filed by him was partly allowed by , vide its judgment and decree dated . He challenged the same before learned District Judge, Patiala, who Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to judgment and e t e appeal against the judgment and decree dated d by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated are that the appellant was appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980. He filed civil suit for his pay fixation suit filed by him was partly allowed by , vide its judgment and decree dated Gaurav Arora 2025.08.20 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-287-2015 2 dismissed it vide its judgment and decree dated appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at this stage, he is not pressing the other grounds and no appeal is filed by the respondents, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala, which has been upheld by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. Learned counsel comply with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala 5. I have heard learned counsel for the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 6. The appellant in the civil suit filed by him was asking for the benefit of 8/16/24 years of service as per Assure Admittedly, the appellant was superannuated as Conductor on 30.09.2012. Further up was due on 17.12.1988 16 years of Proficiency step up but he was not given pro years of service Government instructions, he vide its judgment and decree dated Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at this stage, he is not pressing the other grounds and no appeal is filed by the respondents, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Jr. Division), Patiala, therefore, he be granted relief as granted by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala, which has been upheld by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent comply with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Jr. Division), Patiala. He, therefore prays that the present appeal be Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala and contends that the present appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the whole record of this case with their able assistance. The appellant in the civil suit filed by him was asking for the /16/24 years of service as per Assure he appellant was appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980 superannuated as Conductor on 30.09.2012. Further up was due on 17.12.1988, which was paid to him. The appellant was also given 16 years of Proficiency step up but he was not given pro since there were adverse remarks in his ACR Government instructions, he did not earn two good vide its judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. Hence the present Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at this stage, he is not pressing the other grounds and no appeal is filed by the respondents, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned , Patiala, therefore, he be granted relief as granted by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala, which has been upheld by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. contends that the respondents be directed to comply with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned . He, therefore prays that the present appeal be Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil and contends that the present appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. The appellant in the civil suit filed by him was asking for the /16/24 years of service as per Assured Carrier Progression Scheme. appointed as Conductor on 18.12.1980 and was superannuated as Conductor on 30.09.2012. Further, 08 years proficiency step , which was paid to him. The appellant was also given 16 years of Proficiency step up but he was not given proficiency step up after 24 since there were adverse remarks in his ACRs. As per Punjab two good annual reports out of last 3 e the present Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at this stage, he is not pressing the other grounds and no appeal is filed by the respondents, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned , Patiala, therefore, he be granted relief as granted by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala, which has been upheld by the learned District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. be directed to comply with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned . He, therefore prays that the present appeal be The appellant in the civil suit filed by him was asking for the er Progression Scheme. and was 08 years proficiency step , which was paid to him. The appellant was also given ficiency step up after 24 As per Punjab Gaurav Arora 2025.08.20 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-287-2015 3 annual reports to get the benefit of proficienc never communicated regarding adverse remarks in his ACR’s. 7. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case 2008 (4) RSJ 130 to communicate every ACR of every employee where he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than military) so that he can make representation to the competent authority 8. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Dutt’s case (supra) respondents after conveying ACR’s, which the respondents relied to deny the benefit of 24 years of profici 9. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) upheld by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. Accordingly the 10. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding directions be given dated 04.12.2013 this Court is not the Executing Court and the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment Though he has not pressed the same by stating that the respondents be directed to implement the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) available to him, reports to get the benefit of proficiency never communicated regarding adverse remarks in his ACR’s. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (4) RSJ 130 wherein it has been held that it is to communicate every ACR of every employee where he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than military) so that he can make representation to the competent authority for correction of his ACR. earned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala has rightly relied upon Dutt’s case (supra) and held that speaking order should be passed by the respondents after conveying ACR’s, which the respondents relied to deny the nefit of 24 years of proficiency step up to the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) upheld by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated Accordingly the present regular second So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding given to the respondents to comply dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge this Court is not the Executing Court and the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment hough he has not pressed the same by stating that the respondents be directed to implement the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala. For that, the appellant is free to avail remedy as is in accordance with law. step up. But the appellant was never communicated regarding adverse remarks in his ACR’s. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, wherein it has been held that it is mandatory for the employer to communicate every ACR of every employee where he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than military) so that he can make for correction of his ACR. Patiala has rightly relied upon Dev and held that speaking order should be passed by the respondents after conveying ACR’s, which the respondents relied to deny the step up to the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala, which is upheld by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated present regular second appeal is dismissed. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding y with the judgment and decree Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala is concerned, this Court is not the Executing Court and the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. hough he has not pressed the same by stating that the respondents be directed to implement the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil he appellant is free to avail remedy as is step up. But the appellant was Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, mandatory for the employer to communicate every ACR of every employee where he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than military) so that he can make Dev and held that speaking order should be passed by the respondents after conveying ACR’s, which the respondents relied to deny the Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree Patiala, which is upheld by learned District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding judgment and decree concerned, this Court is not the Executing Court and the appellant has filed the present . hough he has not pressed the same by stating that the respondents be directed to implement the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by learned Civil he appellant is free to avail remedy as is Gaurav Arora 2025.08.20 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-287-2015 4 11. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 12. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. August 12, 2025 Gaurav Arora Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE : Yes : Yes Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Gaurav Arora 2025.08.20 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document