BABU LALversusHARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT. BOARD

                          (2009] 3 S.C.R. 130


A                        BABU LAL
                              v.
         HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT. BOARD
               (Civil Appeal No. 884 of 2009)
                        FEBRUARY 11, 2008
B
      [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

         Suit - Seeking decree for payment of salary for a              .~


    particular period - Held: Suit liable to be dismissed - Plaintiff
c   not entitled to salary, since he had not worked on the post for
    the entire period, as claimed.

       Appellant filed a suit for a decree for payment of
  salary from 2.11.1995 to 30.3.2001. Trial court dismissed
D the suit. First appellate court decreed the same. In second
  appeal, High Court dismissed the suit relying on Exbt. PS             (t
  which showed that the appellant had worked as
  Executive Officer only from 28.3.1997 to 31.7.1997. Hence
  the present appeal.
E        Dismissing the appeal, the Court.

      HELD: A bare perusal of Exhibit P-5 would show that
  the plaintiff-appellant had worked as Executive Officer
                                                                        ~

  from 28th of March, 1997 to 31st of July, 1!997, but this
F would  not mean that he would be entitled to salary from
  2nd of November, 1995 to 30th of March, 2001. A further
  perusal of Exhibit P-5 would also show that the plaintiff-
  appellant was only given additional charge to look after
  work of EC-cum-Secretary in addition to his duties as
G Assistant Secretary until further orders. It would also be
  evident from Exhibit P-5 that additional charge was given
  without any extra remuneration. The office memorandum
  would also make it clear that no arrears of pay will be
  made for the period for which he had actually not worked.
H                                 130
       BABU LAL v. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT.               131
                          BOARD
•   That being the position, the conclusions arrived at by the          A
    High Court cannot be upset. [Para 7) [133-H; 134-A]

         Union of India etc. etc. v. K. V. Jankiraman etc. etc. AIR
    1991 SC 2010, referred to

                          Case Law Reference :                          B

         AIR 1991 SC 2010             Referred to          Para 3

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 884/
    2009.
                                                                        c
        From the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2006 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 2795/
    2005.

         Mahinder Singh Dahiya forthe Appellants.
                                                                        D
        Ambuj Agarwal, B.S. Banthia and Govend Goel for the
    Respondent.                         ·

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                        E
         TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This is a pl,aintiffs appeal in a suit for a decree for
    payment of salary from 2nd of November, 1995 to 30th of
    March, 2001 and for other incidental reliefs which is directed
    against the judgment dated 27th of November, 2006 passed            F
    by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA
    No. 2795 of 2005 (0 & M) whereby the High Court had allowed
    the second. appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff -
    appellant.
                                                                        G
        3. The parties went into trial and adduced evidence in
    support of their respective cases. After framing issues and after
    considering the evidence, documentary and oral, the trial Court
    dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellate court, relying on a
    judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. v.
                                                                        H
    132       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 3 S.C.R.


A K. V. Jankiraman etc. etc. [AIR 1991 SC 2010] reversed the
  decision of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff -
  appellant. In the second appeal, the High Court relied on the
  aforesaid decision of this Court on which reliance was also
  placed by the appellate court, but after applying the principles
B laid down in the said decision and also on consideration of
  Exhibit P-5 held that the appellant was not entitle!d to any relief
  and allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit.

       4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff, who is now appellant
  before us, filed a special leave petition, which on grant of leave,
C was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the
  parties.

       5. We have heard Mr. Mahinder Singh Dahiya, learned
  counsel for the plaintiff - appellant and Mr. Ambuj Agarwal for
D the defendant - respondent. We have examined the judgment
  of the High Court passed in the second appeal as well as the
  judgments of the courts below and other materials on record. ·
  At the risk of repetition, while dismissing the suit and setting
  aside the judgment of the appellate court, the High Court relied
E on the decision of this Court in Jankiraman's case (supra) and
  on a document being Exhibit P-5, which shows trat the plaintiff
  - appellant had only worked as Executive Officer of the
  respondent from 28th of March, 1997 to 31st of July, 1997.

       6. A reading of the aforesaid decision of this Court would
F show that the authorities are vested with power to decide
  whether an employee at all deserves any salary for the
  intervening period and if he does, the extent to, which he
  deserves it. This decision also clearly suggests that there is no
  inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is
G exonerated from disciplinary/criminal proceedin!~S, he should
  be automatically entitled to salary including all b13nefits for the
  intervening period. This decision of this Court would also show
  that where the acquittal of an employee in a criminal proceeding
  was on benefit of doubt, the employer has a right to decide
H whether or not such an employee deserves any salary for the
  BABU LAL v. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT.                 133
         BOARD [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]

intervening period. Keeping these observations of this Court         A
in mind, let us now consider whether the High Court was
justified in holding that in the admitted facts of this case, the
appellant was entitled to the salary as claimed. The Office
Memorandum of the respondent clearly shows that the appellant
who was working as Assistant Secretary, Marketing Board,             B
Hasanpur was promoted to the post of E.0.-cum-Secretary with
effect from 2nd of November, 1995 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-
20-2300-EB-75-3200 and further revised with· effect from 1st
of January, 1996 to Rs.7450-225-11500. In the said office
memorandum, it was also made clear that no arrears of pay            c
would be made for the period for which he had actually not
worked.

      7. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, reversed the
finding of the Appellate Court on consideration of Exhibit P5
and also applying the principles laid down in Jankiraman's           D
case (supra) held that Exhibit P-5 would show that the plaintiff
- appellant had worked with the respondent as an Executive
Officer only from 28th of March, 1997 to 31st of July, 1997.
Relying on this document and also on the aforesaid decision
of this Court, the High Court dismissed the suit and held that       E
the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to salary from 2nd of
November, 1995 to 30th of March, 2001. Although the findings
of the High Court, as noted herein above, may not be very clear,
but on consideration of the entire materials on record including
Exhibit P-5 and the principles laid down in Jankiraman's case        F
(supra), we do not find any reason to ~et aside the judgment
of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeal. The
Appellate Court, while reversing the finding of the trial Court,
as noted herein earlier, held that the competent authority had
not recorded any legal, valid and acceptable reasons for             G
denying the arrears of salary to the plaintiff - appellant to whom
promotion was denied due to criminal prosecution and
departmental proceeding which exonerated him ultimately. A
bare perusal of Exhibit P-5 on which reliance was also placed
by the High Court in the impugned judgment would show that           H
    134        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009) 3 S.C.R.


A the plaintiff-appellant had worked as Executive Officer from 28th
  of March, 1997 to 31st of July, 1997, but this would not mean
  that he would be entitled to salary from 2nd of November, 1995
  to 30th of March, 2001. A further perusal of Exhibit P-5 would
  also show that the plaintiff-appellant was only given additional
s charge to look after work of EO-cum-Secretary in addition to
  his duties as Assistant Secretary until further orders. It would
  also be evident from Exhibit P-5 that additional charge was
  given without any extra remuneration. At the risk of repetition,
  the aforesaid office memorandum would also make it clear that
c no arrears of pay will be made for the period for which he had
  actually not worked. That being the position, we are not in a
  position to upset the conclusions arrived at by the High Court
  in the aforesaid second appeal which is impugned before us
  in this appeal.
D        8. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the High Court
    and restore the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the suit
    of the plaintiff -appellant.

       9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and
E the judgment and decree of the High Court passed in the
  aforesaid second appeal is hereby affirmed and that of the trial
  court is restored. There will be no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                     Appeal dismissed.