Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 895 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. R. P. Monga

2008-04-21

K.C.PURI

body2008
JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal directed by the State of Punjab and others against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987 vide which Shri Pirthipal Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Patiala, accepted the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1985 passed by Shri J.R. Singla Sub Judge first Class, Patiala. 2. Briefly stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he continues in the grade of Rs. 200-450/-, subsequently revised to Rs. 700-1200 w.e.f. 1.1.1978, and is entitled to all the benefits of the grade aforesaid and service benefit of regularization and seniority arising from the plaintiffs previous service from 2.4.1966 to 22.12.1967. 3. It is pleaded that plaintiff was appointed by the Superintending Engineer first Bhakra Main Line Circle, Patiala Tubwell Division Malerkotla as Sectional Officer in the grade of Rs. 100-10-200-10-300/- in the Punjab Irrigation Department and he served from 2.4.1966 to 11.7.1966 in first Bhakhra Main Line Circle, Patiala from 1.12.1966 to 31.5.1967 in Tubewell Division Malerkotla and from 23.6.1967 to 22.12.1967, in Tubewell Division, Malerkotla. The services of the plaintiff were terminated due to absorption of regular Sectional Officer (Mechanical). The plaintiff was again appointed as Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 100-10-250 in the Government Quality Marketing Centre for engineering Goods Malerkotla, on 20.3.1968. Afterwards, on the basis of Punjab Pay Commission, he was placed on the grade of Rs. 200-450/- and received all the arrears. The Pay Commission had given this grade to all the diploma holders in mechanical Engineering working in the various department throughout the State. So, the plaintiff being a diploma holder in mechanical engineering was given the grade of Rs. 200-450/- rightly. He was demoted from the original appointment from Technical Assistant to the post of Inspector on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 140-300 w.e.f. 9.12.1969 vide order dated 24.12.1969 which order has been declared to be illegal and void. The services of the plaintiff were regularized after more than seven years w.e.f. 1.1.1973 as Inspector in the grade of Rs. 160-400/-. The plaintiff sent various reminders for regularization of his services in original grade of Rs. 200-450, but all in vain. 4. 140-300 w.e.f. 9.12.1969 vide order dated 24.12.1969 which order has been declared to be illegal and void. The services of the plaintiff were regularized after more than seven years w.e.f. 1.1.1973 as Inspector in the grade of Rs. 160-400/-. The plaintiff sent various reminders for regularization of his services in original grade of Rs. 200-450, but all in vain. 4. Learned counsel for the State and other appellants herein, filed written statement denying the contents of plaint submitting therein that as per terms and conditions, the services of the plaintiff were terminated on expiry of stipulated period which fell on 25.9.1969. He was again appointed as Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis from 27.9.1969 to 8.12.1969. On completion of his term on 8.12.1969, his services were terminated and thereafter, he was appointed as Inspector in the scale of Rs. 140-300/- w.e.f. 9.12.1969. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD. 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction ? OPD. 4. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad due to non-service of notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. The trial Court recorded the findings on Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff whereas Issue Nos. 2 to 5 were given up. Issue No. 6 was decided against the defendants. However, in view of the findings on Issue No. 1, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1985, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court. Shri Pirthipal Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Patiala vide its judgment and decree dated 26.7.1985 returned the finding on Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and partly accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that order dated 24.12.1969 is illegal and void and plaintiff continued in the grade of Rs. 200-450/- which was subsequently revised. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 9. Ms. 200-450/- which was subsequently revised. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 9. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, AAG, Punjab has submitted that the following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration : a) Whether the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987 has misread and misinterpreted the appointment of letter (Ex. D-4). 10. It is submitted that the plaintiff was appointed as technical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 100-250/- which was later on, revised to Rs. 200-450/- on ad hoc basis. However, later on he was appointed as Quality Inspector in the scale of Rs. 140-300/- w.e.f. 9.12.1969. Since the plaintiff was on ad hoc basis, and he has accepted the fresh appointment in a lower scale of Rs. 140- 300/- as Quality Inspector, as such, it cannot be said that he was reverted. It was a fresh appointment. Learned first appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the documents Exhibits D-3 and D-4 on the file. 11. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurabh Verma, Advocate has supported the judgment of the first appellate Court. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and also gone through the record of the case. 13. It is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff was appointed as Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 100-250/7 vide appointment letter dated 20.3.1968 (Ex.D-1) on temporary basis for a period of six months. From the letter dated 6.6.1969, it is revealed that the term of appointment of the plaintiff as Technical Assistant was extended for a period of three months in the grade of Rs. 200-450. The dispute between the parties has arisen on account of issuance of letter dated 24.12.1969 (Ex.D-4). From the perusal of the same, it is revealed that this letter was issued on 24.12.1969 but the services of the plaintiff are shown to have been terminated w.e.f. 8.12.1969 and he is stated to have been re-appointed as Inspector Quality Marketing Centre Engineering, Patiala in the grade of Rs. 140-300/- w.e.f. 9.12.1969 on ad hoc basis for a period of three months. 14. The contention of the State is that it is fresh appointment as Inspector Quality Marketing Centre Engineering, Patiala (herein referred to as Inspector) in the lower scale of Rs 140-300/-. 140-300/- w.e.f. 9.12.1969 on ad hoc basis for a period of three months. 14. The contention of the State is that it is fresh appointment as Inspector Quality Marketing Centre Engineering, Patiala (herein referred to as Inspector) in the lower scale of Rs 140-300/-. The first appellate Court has held that since the plaintiff has never applied for the post of Inspector and on 24.12.1969 he was still working as Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 200-450/-, he cannot be appointed on the terms disadvantageous to him. It has been further held by the first appellate Court that no opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiff before placing him in the scale of Rs. 140- 300/- which is definitely lower scale than the Technical Assistant of Rs. 200-450/- that too retrospectively. So that being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the second appeal. 15. Learned State counsel could not draw my pointed attention to any document or evidence on the file which has been mis-interpreted or misread by the first appellate Court. So the substantial question of law raised by the learned State counsel is answered against the appellants. 16. During the course of arguments, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff-respondent has since retired and he has been paid all the consequential benefits arising out of the impugned judgment dated 26.10.1987. So otherwise also, to put the clock back to 23 years, more so after the retirement of the plaintiff, is trot in consonance with justice. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.