Tuesday, 02, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kishan Chand vs P.S.E.B. Patiala
2024 Latest Caselaw 7704 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7704 P&H
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kishan Chand vs P.S.E.B. Patiala on 10 April, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                               Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049086
                                                 2024:PHHC:049086
RSA-157-1994
                                                    -1-
211

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
            AT CHANDIGARH

                                       RSA-157-1994
                                       Date of order:-10.04.2024

Krishan Chand Verma

                                                              ...Appellant

                   Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala

                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present :- Mr.R.S. Randhawa, Advocate with
           Mr.Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate
           for the appellant.

            Mr.R.S. Kalra, Advocate
            for the respondent.

            ****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. Plaintiff - appellant is before this Court by way of the

instant second appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by

both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts may be noticed. Plaintiff - Krishan Chand

Verma had filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction

pleading that he had been granted 100% Generation Incentive vide order

dated 10.06.1985 under an order passed by the Chief Engineer/General

Manager, Ropar Thermal Project as the plaintiff was performing extra

duties and discharging additional responsibilities. He remained posted

with the Ropar Thermal Project till 17.06.1988. When he came to know

that the defendants are in the process of effecting recovery, he filed a

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049086 2024:PHHC:049086 RSA-157-1994

suit for declaration. Upon notice, defendants contested the suit by filing

a written statement wherein it has been submitted that the plaintiff

belongs to the Clerical Cadre and as he has never discharged duties of

technical nature, he is not entitled to 100% Generation Incentive. It has

been submitted that the plaintiff was getting 60% incentive as per his

entitlement. A stand has been taken that the General Manager/Chief

Engineer was not competent to pass an order for increase of 100%

incentive and recovery of Rs.18,626.50 is to be effected from the

plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed

and after they led evidence, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated

06.04.1992 dismissed the suit. Findings recorded by the trial Court were

affirmed in appeal by judgment dated 07.01.1994 passed by Additional

District Judge, Patiala, resulting in the institution of the present appeal

by the plaintiff.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their

respective submissions as well as examined the record with their able

assistance.

4. Para 2 of Order bearing No.379/Fin-385 dated 06.04.1985,

Ex.P3, which provides for grant of Generation Incentive w.e.f.

01.01.1985, is as under:

"(2) The payment of incentive to Group-II, (Non-Operative

Staff) will be 60% of the Incentive admissible to Group-I

(Operative Staff)."

5. Plaintiff was working on the post of Personal Assistant to

the Chief Engineer and falls in the category of Ministerial Staff in the

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049086 2024:PHHC:049086 RSA-157-1994

office of Chief Engineer. It has not been disputed that the plaintiff will

fall in the category of non-operative staff. In view of the above re-

production, he was, therefore clearly not entitled to the 100%

Generation Incentive. Rather, his entitlement is 60% incentive, which is

being drawn by him. This Court is, therefore, of the view that there is no

error in the judgments passed by both the Courts below.

6. The other contention raised by the counsel for the appellant

is that the recovery could not have been effected without providing any

show-cause notice or opportunity to the appellant. This Court does not

intend to go into this argument as this plea has not been taken by him in

his plaint nor any issue has been framed on it.

7. As a result of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm

view that the reasoning given by the Courts below does not call for any

interference and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts deserve to

be upheld.

8. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with

no order as to costs.




                                         (SUVIR SEHGAL)
10.04.2024                                  JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No
Whether reportable        :              Yes/No




                                3 of 3

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter