RSA No. 2915 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2915 of 2008
Decided on : 16-02-2009
Daya Ram
....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate for the appellant
MAHESH GROVER, J
This appeal is directed against the judgements of the learned
Trial Court dated10.1.2005 and the First Appellate Court dated 2.2.2008.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking a relief of
declaration as well as mandatory injunction that he was entitled to pay
protection and re-fixation of substantive pay and that order of the Director,
Panchayats Haryanan Govt. dated 31.1.2000 by which substantive pay is
affected is illegal.
The case of the appellant is that he retired on 29.2.2000 from
the post of Social Education and Panchayat Officer from the office of
BD&PO, Block-II, Charkhi Dadri. His services were transferred alongwith
transfer of 450 posts of Gram Sachiv to Agriculture Department, Haryana
for the purpose of absorption. It was pleaded that he got the selection grade
of Rs. 220-450 and selection grade of Rs. 525-1050 on 31.12.1985 and then
he was given the grade of 1400-50-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 w.e.f
1.1.1986. He was promoted to the post of Social Education and Panchayat
Officer and he joined as such on 1.10.1997. His pay was revised to
RSA No. 2915 of 2008 2
Rs.5450-150-6950-EB-150-1800 and substantive pay of Rs. 6500/- was
fixed on 1.1.1996. He pleaded that he was entitled to get substantive pay of
Rs. 7100/- plus DA admissible on the date of retirement alongwith interest
at the rate of 18% per annum. The order dated 31.1.2000 was assailed vide
which his basic pay was fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in the grade of Rs.5000/7850
which comes to basic pay of Rs.5750/- in the post of SEPO as on 1.10.1997.
The respondents who contested the suit contended that the
appellant had been transferred to the Agriculture Department and he
retained his lien with the parent department vide order dated 11.9.1997.
The appellant was not absorbed in the Agriculture Department and since he
was retaining his lien in the Panchayat Department and the pay scales which
were admissible were accordingly granted to him.
The Trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the protection of pay in
pay scale of 5450-150-6950-EB-150-8000 and order no. A4-
2000/3538-40 dated 31.1.2000 issued by defendant No.2,
whereby reduction of his substantive pay was ordered is
illegal, against principles of natural justice, void and not
binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff then
whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of
pay and pension benefits of arrears and other retiremental
benefits with interest @18% per annum as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct
RSA No. 2915 of 2008 3
to file the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-filing of appeal,
representation before the competent authority? OPD.
6. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction in the matter?
OPD.
7. Relief.
After appraisal of the material before it, Trial Court concluded
that appellant is not entitled to the benefit as claimed by him and dismissed
the suit.
In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed
by the learned First Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
findings recorded are erroneous as his pay scale could not have been varied
to his dis-advantage.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the
considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below do not
warrant any interference. It is not the case of the appellant that when he was
denied absorption in the Agriculture Department he had challenged the
order. The pleadings of the respondent as per the written statement was that
he was retaining his lien in the Panchayat Department and since he could
not be absorbed in the Agriculture Department, he was reverted to his parent
Department and was given pay scales which were admissible to the
similarly situated employees in the same Department. The appellant has not
been able to controvert this aspect of the matter.
In view of this, when his reversion from the Agriculture
Department to his parent Department was not assailed by the appellant and
RSA No. 2915 of 2008 4
no grievance was made and also in view of the fact that he was retaining his
lien in his parent department, he was naturally entitled to the pay scale
which were admissible as against the post in his parent department.
Dismissed.
February 16, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge