BABU LAL versus HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT. BOARD

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 11-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 130 
A 
BABU LAL 
v. 
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKT. BOARD 
(Civil Appeal No. 884 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 11, 2008 
[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 : 
AIR 1991 SC 2010 
Referred to 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 884/ 
2009. 
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. 
Ambuj Agarwal, B.S. Banthia and Govend Goel for the 
Respondent. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
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. 
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. 
G 
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 d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.