IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.   1353     OF 2009   

(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 9379/2006)   

State of Haryana & Ors. ..   Appellant(s)                   

  Versus

Daljeet Singh ..   Respondent(s)                                                           O R D E R

No one appears for the respondent.

Leave granted.

We find that the issue raised in this appeal, viz, whether the respondent is

entitled to get the ACP Scale, is no more res integra.   Admittedly, the same question

was considered by this Court in C.A. No. 3250 of 2006 (Commissioner and Secretary

to Government of Haryana & Ors. vs.  Ram Sarup Ganda & Ors.) and connected

matters.   Vide judgment  and  order dated August  02,  2006 reported in  2006 (12)

SCALE  440,  the  appeals  filed   by  the  State  have  been  partly  allowed  with  the

following     directions :

"In  the  result,  all  the  appeals  are  partly  allowed.   The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents.  In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly.  Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this Order by  the  Government.   However,  if  upon revision of the  pay- scales, any employee is liable to refund  any  

          ...2/-

:2:

amount, the Government shall not insist on refund of such amount.  If any employee is entitled to get any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount  shall be made available to  him within a period of six months  from the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy  of  this  order by  the Government.

Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said decision squarely

applies to the facts in hand.  In that view of the matter, this appeal is partly allowed

in terms of the afore-noted  judgment.  No order as to costs.

                                       ...................J.            [ D.K. JAIN ]  

                                       ...................J.                                     [ R.M. LODHA ]                         

NEW DELHI, MARCH 02, 2009.