Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The plaintiff is in appeal. He has lost before the learned first appellate court. 2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. It was claimed by him that he had joined as a Laboratory Assistant with the defendant-College with effect from July 8,1967. The said College was governed by the Punjab University Calender. The Punjab University had asked the College for appointment of one Lecture Assistant and one lab. 3. Assistant. Through, a resolution dated June 22,1975 service conditions and conduct rules were adopted by the College with effect from April 1,1974. The plaintiff further claimed that one Rajinder Parshad moved an application in January,1977 for appointment as Lab. Assistant on the basis of directions issued by the Punjab University and a resolution was passed on May 5,1977 by the College that all Lab. Assistants were to be designated as a Lecture Assistants. However, the said resolution was not implemented. Another resolution was adopted by the Managing committee on June 16,1978 whereby it was resolved that no re-designation of the post was required since no financial benefits were to flow to such employees. However, later on resolution dated March 9,1980 was passed whereby the designation of two Lab. Assistants was changed to Lecture Assistant. 4. Plaintiff claimed that representations had been made by him to change the designation with effect from April 1,1974 so that the financial benefits could also flow to the plaintiff. However, no action was taken. The plaintiff also claimed that as per Government instructions Lecture Assistants were to be re-designated as Senior Assistants with effect from September 1,1978 and the pay scales of Rs.510-810 were to be allowed to them. 5. Consequently, the failure of the college to re-designate the post of Lab. Assistant to lecture Assistant with effect from April 1,1974 had caused a loss to the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The suit field by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial court. 6. The management took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate court reappraised the evidence. On such reappraisal, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the College had taken a decision on may 5,1977 that all Lab. Assistants be designated as Lecture Assistants. 7. The suit field by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial court. 6. The management took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate court reappraised the evidence. On such reappraisal, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the College had taken a decision on may 5,1977 that all Lab. Assistants be designated as Lecture Assistants. 7. However, the said decision was not implemented and later on June 16,1978, the management had decided that since no financial benefits were to flow to any employee, therefore no re-designation was required. It was only on march 9,1980 that the management had passed a resolution changing the designation of two Lab. Assistants to Lecture Assistants. Therefore, it was only with effect from March 9,1980 that the plaintiff would be treated to have been working as a Lecture Assistant and,therefore, any government instructions granting any relief to Lecture Assistants with effect from april 1,1974 were not applicable to the case of the plaintiff. It was also held that since there was no post of Lecture Assistant with the College prior to march 9,1980, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any higher scales or that of Lecture Assistants, prior to the aforesaid date. 8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the management was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The facts noticed above clearly show that for the first time the post of the plaintiff was re-designated on March 9,1980 and with effect from that date only the plaintiff started working as Lecture Assistant. 9. In these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be heard to claim that he was entitled to any financial benefits with effect from April 1,1974 or that the management was bound in law to re-designate his post with effect from april 1,1974. It is also apparent, in essense, the plaintiff is aggrieved from the resolution dated March 9,1980. Thus, the suit field by him on december 20,1988 is also barred by limitation. 10. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.