IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZEPUR.

1. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government,

Punjab, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.

2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Department, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs Department, Ferozepur.
…Appellants/Defendants.

V E R S U S

Jaspal Singh, retired Inspector Grade-I, Food Civil Supplies

and Consumer Affairs Department, earlier posted at Talwandi
Bhai, District Ferozepur son of Pirthi Singh, resident of House
No.1051, Gali No.10-R, Dogger Basti, Faridkot.

…Respondent/Plaintiff.

Appeal Under Section 96 of Civil Procedure

Code against impugned judgment and decree
dated 17th of May, 2013 passed by the Court
of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS, Civil Judge,
(Junior Division), Ferozepur, vide which
the Learned Lower Court has decreed the
suit of respondent/plaintiff for decree of
declaration against the appellants and
held entitled the plaintiff for two
proficiency step ups on completion of 8
and 18 years service and also entitled the
plaintiff to interest on the said amount @
9% per annum from the date when it became
due upto the date of payment and hence,
held entitled the plaintiff to fixation,
grant and release of his monthly pay and
allowances after taking into consideration
the above said service alongwith interest
@ 9% per annum from the date it became due
till its realization.
___
 2

CLAIM IN APPEAL: For acceptance of appeal; setting aside

impugned judgment and decree and further
to dismiss the suit filed by respondent/
plaintiff, with costs throughout.
___

Respectfully showeth,
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

1. That the impugned judgment and decree passed by Learned

Lower Court are against law and facts on record and the
same is wrong, illegal, void, highly improbable and
liable to be set aside.

2. That the Learned Lower Court has wrongly and illegally

decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff for decree of
declaration and held the plaintiff entitled for two
proficiency step ups on completion of 8 and 18 years
service. It has been further held that as the plaintiff
has already got 8 years proficiency step up, but he got
this payment in the year 2011, so he is entitled to
interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from the
date when it became due upto the date of payment.
Accordingly, plaintiff has been entitled to fixation,
grant and release of his monthly pay and allowances
after taking into consideration the above said service
and further he has been entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum from the date it became due till its realization,
on untenable grounds, whereas infact, suit of the
respondent/plaintiff being false, frivolous and
vexatious is liable to be dismissed, with costs.

3. That impugned judgment itself shows lack of judicious

approach to the matter in hand on the part of Learned
Lower Court. Even the Learned Lower Court has not
appreciated the facts and law points involved in the
case and has passed the impugned order without going
through all the pros and cons of the case and has acted
in a very hot haste and cryptic manner. While deciding
present case, Learned Lower Court has wrongly placed
reliance on the evidence led by the plaintiff, whereas
if the respective pleadings of the parties are seen,
then the facts mentioned in the written statement of
appellants/defendants clearly show that plaintiff is
not entitled to any relief as wrongly claimed in the
present suit. The Learned Lower Court has failed to
 3

appreciate that as per official record, the services of

plaintiff were regularized on 01.04.1977 as Clerk by
the competent authority vide order endorsement No.6642-
A3(2)-78/36805, dated 21.07.1978 and thereafter, 8 year
proficiency step up was granted to the plaintiff on
15.10.1987 vide order bearing endorsement No.FSE-3(2)-
(54)-90/449, dated 12.02.1990 and the same orders were
withdrawn in view of the instructions issued from
Personnel Department vide endorsement No.7/106/9105
P.P./1/19586, dated 20.09.1994 and step up of 8 year
was granted vide order dated 19.05.2009 issued vide
endorsement No.A-1(2)2009/ 871, dated 22.05.2009 w.e.f.
01.01.1986 and 2nd proficiency step up of 18 years
falls due to the plaintiff on 1.04.1995, but the
plaintiff was promoted/ placed as Inspector Grade-2 on
29.07.1994. On promotion of the plaintiff, he was
granted benefits of one increment w.e.f. 29.07.1994.
Further as per Government instructions issued vide
Letter No.10/7/88-FPI/10319, dated 24.11.1988, an
employee who has been granted 8/18 years proficiency
step up or higher scale, he is entitled for one annual
increment on account of promotion and in case, the
employee is not granted an increment of 8/18 years or
high scale, he is entitled for two annual increment of
promotion. In this case, the plaintiff has already been
granted 8 years proficiency step up w.e.f. 01.01.1986
before his promotion as Inspector Grade-2, hence, the
plaintiff is entitled for only one annual increment on
promotion as per Government instructions mentioned
above. Even the Learned Lower Court also failed to
appreciate that the plaintiff was also granted 8 years
proficiency step up in higher scale as Sub Inspector on
29.07.2002 vide order dated 20.12.2002 issued vide
endorsement No.A-5(4)(215)-2002/7477, dated 31.12.2002.
Furthermore, the plaintiff given his option to get the
benefits under scheme of 4,9,14 year for which he was
granted 9 years step up in higher scale w.e.f.
01.11.2006 vide order dated 27.02.2008 issued vide
endorsement No.A-3(4) (Personal File)-2008/1071, dated
03.04.2008. On 27.09.2007, the plaintiff was promoted
as Inspector Grade-I and he was granted the benefit of
one increment vide order dated 15.07.2009 issued vide
endorsement No.A-09/2780, dated 16.07.2009. Since the
plaintiff has already been granted the benefits due to
him as per Government instructions, as such, plaintiff
 4

is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the

present suit and the suit is nothing, but an abuse of
process of law and is liable to be dismissed. The
Learned Lower Court has not gone through the pleadings
of appellants/defendants in a right prospective and as
such, impugned judgment is based on mere conjectures
and surmises and is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. That the findings of Learned Lower Court on issue no.1

partially in favour of respondent/plaintiff are illegal
erroneous and the same are liable to be quashed. The
plaintiff is not entitled for decree of declaration as
prayed for. Infact, there is sufficient oral as well as
documentary evidence in the shape of DW1 Kikar Singh,
Superintendent, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs,
Ferozepur as DW-1, who duly proved the documents i.e.
Letter NO.36805, dated 21.07.1978 Ex.D1, Letter No.449,
dated 12.02.1990 Ex.D2, Letter No.19586, dated
20.09.1994 Ex.D3, order dated 22.05.2009 Ex.D4, Letter
No.10317, dated 24.11.1988 Ex.D5, Letter No.1828, dated
03.06.2009 Ex.D6, order No.7477, dated 31.12.2002 Ex.D7
order dated 30.04.2008 and Letter No.2280, dated
16.07.2009 Ex.D9, however, the same have not been taken
into consideration by the Learned Lower Court in a
right prospective. The Learned Lower Court has placed
undue reliance to the cross-examination of DW1 and
failed to appreciate that minor discrepancies, if any,
in the cross-examination of DW-1 are liable to be
discarded, keeping in view the long pendency of present
case since the year 2008. As per law, the plaintiff has
to stand on his own legs, but in the present case, the
plaintiff has failed to prove his false claim and as
such, plaintiff cannot be allowed to take any undue
advantage of mere technicalities of law. The
observation of Learned Lower Court to the effect that
the plaintiff is entitled to 8 years proficiency step
up is without any justification. Since the 8 years
proficiency step up granted to plaintiff on 15.10.1987
was withdrawn in view of the instructions issued by the
Personnel Department and thereafter step up of 8 year
was granted vide order dated 19.05.2009, as such, the
plaintiff is left with no relief as wrongly claimed in
the present suit and further the plaintiff cannot be
allowed to approbate or reprobate on the same breath.
Furthermore, second proficiency step up of 18 years was
 5

due to the plaintiff on 01.04.1995, but the plaintiff

was promoted as Inspector Grade @ on 29.07.1994 and as
such, the plaintiff is not entitled to 18 years
proficiency step up as wrongly claimed by him. Further
since on promotion, plaintiff was granted benefit of
one increment w.e.f. 29.07.1994, as such, as per rule,
he is not entitled to promotional increment. The
Learned Lower Court has wrongly observed that the
service of plaintiff is to be counted from 06.02.1976
i.e. the date when the plaintiff joined the service of
defendants, whereas infact, when service of plaintiff
was regularized on 1.04.1977, the service period of
plaintiff is to be counted from 01.04.1977 and not
06.02.1976. There is no justification on the part of
Learned Lower Court in this regard. The findings of
Learned Lower Court are based upon mere assumptions and
presumptions, which have no space under the law and the
same are liable to be reversed in view of the law and
facts brought on record.

5. That the Learned Lower Court has rightly held that the
plaintiff is not entitled to two promotional increments
on his promotion. Even otherwise, interest has been
wrongly granted on quite higher side and there is no
justification for awarding interest @ 9% per annum.

6. That the findings of Learned Lower Court on issues no.2

to 5 are illegal, erroneous and the same are liable to
be quashed in view of sufficient cause as already
explained above. The Learned Lower Court has not taken
into consideration that since the plaintiff has not
issued proper Notice Under Section 80 CPC upon the
appellants/defendants, which is mandatory requirement
as per settled provisions of law, as such, the suit of
plaintiff is not maintainable in present form on this
score alone. This fact being a matter of record, was
not liable to be pressed for the sake of arguments and
the non-pressing of this issue cannot be taken as a
qualification of respondent while decreeing his suit on
untenable grounds. Further the plaintiff has no locus-
standi or cause of action to file present suit. Even
the Learned Lower Court has exceeded the jurisdiction
vested in it in an illegal and irregular manner while
deciding the present case. As such, the findings of
 6

Learned Lower Court on these issues are liable to be

reversed.

7. That the Learned Lower Court has wrongly and illegally

believed the untrustworthy, unreliable and unbelievable
evidence adduced by the respondent and has wrongly
disbelieved trustworthy, cogent, reliable & believable
evidence of appellants, which needs reappraisal by this
Hon’ble Court to undo the injustice caused to the
appellants.

8. That the appeal is barred by limitation on account of

fulfilling proper procedure of obtaining necessary
sanction for filing the present appeal through proper
channel and the same being procedural delay is liable
to be condoned. However, a separate application Under
Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of
delay in filing present appeal is being filed alongwith
the present appeal.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present appeal

may kindly be accepted; the impugned judgment and decree dated
17th of May, 2013 passed by the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal,
PCS, Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ferozepur be kindly set
aside and further the suit of respondent/plaintiff may kindly
be dismissed, with costs throughout.

Submitted by

1. The State of Punjab, through the

Secretary to Government, Punjab, Food
FEROZEPUR. Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.
_________.
2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Ferozepur.

…Appellants/Defendants.

Through

Government Pleader, Ferozepur.

 7

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZEPUR.

1. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government,

Punjab, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.

2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Department, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs Department, Ferozepur.

…Applicants/Defendants.

V E R S U S

Jaspal Singh, retired Inspector Grade-I, Food Civil Supplies

and Consumer Affairs Department, earlier posted at Talwandi
Bhai, District Ferozepur son of Pirthi Singh, resident of House
No.1051, Gali No.10-R, Dogger Basti, Faridkot.

…Respondent/Plaintiff.

Appeal Under Section 96 of Civil

Procedure Code, against impugned judgment
and decree dated 17th of May, 2013 passed
by the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur.
___

Application Under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC

for staying the operation, execution and
implementation of impugned judgment and
decree dated 17th of May, 2013 passed by
the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur,
till the decision of present appeal.
___

Respectfully showeth,

1. That the above titled appeal is being filed alongwith the

present application before this Hon’ble Court today,
which is likely to be accepted, because of sufficient
cause mentioned therein.

2. That the averments contained in the memorandum of appeal

may be read as a part of present application. For the
 8

sake of brevity and in order to avoid undue repetition of

facts, the same are not being reproduced here.

3. That the applicants/appellants have prima facie case in

their favour and against the respondent.

4. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of

applicants/appellants and against the respondent.

5. That in case, operation, execution and implementation of

the impugned judgment and decree are not stayed as prayed
for, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be
frustrated and the applicants will suffer an irreparable
loss, which cannot be compensated afterwards at any
stage.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that operation, execution

and implementation of impugned judgment and decree dated 17 th of
May, 2013 passed by the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, may kindly be stayed,
till the decision of appeal in the interest of justice.

Submitted by

1. The State of Punjab, through the

Secretary to Government, Punjab, Food
FEROZEPUR. Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.
_________.
2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Ferozepur.

…Applicant/Defendants.

Through

Government Pleader, Ferozepur.

 9

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZEPUR.

1. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government,

Punjab, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.

2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Department, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs Department, Ferozepur.

…Applicants/Defendants.

V E R S U S

Jaspal Singh, retired Inspector Grade-I, Food Civil Supplies

and Consumer Affairs Department, earlier posted at Talwandi
Bhai, District Ferozepur son of Pirthi Singh, resident of House
No.1051, Gali No.10-R, Dogger Basti, Faridkot.

…Respondent/Plaintiff.

Appeal Under Section 96 of Civil

Procedure Code, against impugned judgment
and decree dated 17th of May, 2013 passed
by the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur.
___

Application Under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC

for staying the operation, execution and
implementation of impugned judgment and
decree dated 17th of May, 2013 passed by
the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur,
till the decision of present appeal.
___

AFFIDAVIT

I, Anjuman Bhaskar, District Controller, Food Civil

Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Ferozepur do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the above titled appeal is being filed alongwith the

present application before this Hon’ble Court today,
which is likely to be accepted, because of sufficient
cause mentioned therein.
 10

2. That the averments contained in the memorandum of appeal

may be read as a part of present application. For the
sake of brevity and in order to avoid undue repetition of
facts, the same are not being reproduced here.

3. That the applicants/appellants have prima facie case in

their favour and against the respondent.

4. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of

applicants/appellants and against the respondent.

5. That in case, operation, execution and implementation of

the impugned judgment and decree are not stayed as prayed
for, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be
frustrated and the applicants will suffer an irreparable
loss, which cannot be compensated afterwards at any
stage.

Place : DEPONENT

Date:

Verification

I further solemnly affirm and declare that the contents

of aforesaid affidavit of mine are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and as per information derived from official
records. No part of it is false and nothing relevant has been
concealed therein.

Place : DEPONENT

Date:
 11

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZEPUR.

1. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government,

Punjab, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.

2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Department, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs Department, Ferozepur.

…Applicants/Defendants.

V E R S U S

Jaspal Singh, retired Inspector Grade-I, Food Civil Supplies

and Consumer Affairs Department, earlier posted at Talwandi
Bhai, District Ferozepur son of Pirthi Singh, resident of House
No.1051, Gali No.10-R, Dogger Basti, Faridkot.

…Respondent/Plaintiff.

Appeal Under Section 96 of Civil

Procedure Code, against impugned judgment
and decree dated 17th of May, 2013 passed
by the Court of Sh. Pradeep Synghal, PCS,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur.

------
Application under section 5 of Indian
Limitation Act for condonation of delay
in filing the appeal.
------

Respected Sir,

The applicant/appellants submit as under:-

1. That the applicant/appellant is filing the aforesaid

appeal today in this Hon’ble Court alongwith the present
application.

2. That the averments contained in the memorandum of appeal

may be read as a part of present application.

3. That the delay in filing the present appeal has occurred

inadvertently due to administrative/procedural reasons as
the appellants department being the department of
government of Punjab, it is mandatory to get
 12

approval/sanction of the competent authority for filing

appeal in a case. In the present case after the receipt
of the certified copy of the impugned judgement and
decree dated 17-05-2013 on 17-06-2013, the same were sent
by the office of District Attorney, Ferozepur to the
office of Director Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab,
Chandigarh through proper channel and worthy Direction
Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh declared
the judgement unfit for appeal and sent the same to the
appellate department alongwith his opinion vide letter
memo no C.O. 4(10)09 dated 10-07-2013 for consideration
and further necessary action, Copy of which is attached
herewith as Annexure A-1.However the appellate department
was of the opinion that appeals in this case should be
preferred, therefore decided to file the appeal against
the judgement dated 17-05-2013 through proper channel.
Requisite approval/sanction was conveyed to the Direction
Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh vide
letter no. A1(2)( Court Case)-2013 dated 24-07-2013 to
issue necessary instructions to the district attorney,
Ferozepur for filing appeal. The Director Prosecution and
Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh vide memo no 4123
/CO.4(10) 09 Dated 10-09-2013 has issued the required
instructions to the District Attorney, Ferozepur for
filling appeal. Copy of which is attached as Annexure A-
2. During this procedural course the time of limitation
for filing the appeal has been lapsed.

4. That as the matter remained pending for administrative

approval and due to procedural reasons, inadvertently,
the delay in filing the appeal has occurred which is
neither intentional nor deliberate but due to above
stated circumstances on account of fulfilling proper
procedure of obtaining necessary sanction for filing the
present appeal through proper channel and the same being
procedural delay is liable to be condoned. It is settled
law that the justice should not only be done, but it
should appear to have been done. No litigant is going to
gain anything by filing the time barred appeal etc.

5. That there is sufficient cause as explained above for

condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

6. That a prima-facie case is made out in favour of

applicants and balance of convenience also lies in their
favour.
 13

7. That the applicants will suffer an irreparable loss, in

case delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned
as prayed for, which cannot be compensated afterwards at
any stage. However respondent is not going to lose
anything.

Hence, it is prayed that the delay in filing

the present appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal
may kindly be decided on merits in the interest of
justice.

Submitted by

1. The State of Punjab, through the

Secretary to Government, Punjab, Food
FEROZEPUR. Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Punjab at Chandigarh.
_________.
2. The Director Food Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. The District Controller, Food Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Ferozepur.

…Applicant/Defendants.

Through

Government Pleader, Ferozepur.