State of Haryana and Others vs Ram Kumar

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 18.9.2006 and 19.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff / respondent. The plaintiff brought a suit on the plea that he joined the service of defendant on 11.6.1980 as Helper Carpenter and subsequently was promoted to the post of Assistant Carpenter on 23.7.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1420. Since the date of his promotion he was working as such and on implementation of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4350.

It was the case of the plaintiff that as per the policy of the Government of Haryana, all the employees of Group ''C'' and Group ''D'' were to be granted time bound higher standard pay scale and second higher standard scale on completion of ten years and twenty years regular satisfactory service.

The case set up by the plaintiff was that he having completed more than 17 years regular satisfactory service on the same post belonging to ''C'' category, was entitled to the benefits of next-higher standard pay scale by fixating his pay in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 instead of Rs. 3050-4350 w.e.f. 24.7.1996 along with arrears and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of his completion of ten years regular satisfactory service. On notice, the suit was contested wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff had not completed ten years on one post as on 1.1.1994 as he was promoted to the post of Assistant Carpenter on 23.7.1986 and thus completed ten years service on 22.7.1996.

In the meantime, ACP Rules came into existence w.e.f. 1.1.1996, therefore, he was not entitled to higher standard scale. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had not completed ten years service on one post before the enforcement of the ACP rules w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and hence his case could not be considered under the rule of higher standard scale and therefore he was not entitled to pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- It was claimed that plaintiff was also not entitled to any benefit under ACP rule in view of the fact that he stood promoted to post of Assistant Carpenter. On merits, other pleas were denied and a plea was also raised that suit was barred by limitation.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court pleased to frame the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get higher standard pay scale on completion of ten years or more of regular satisfactory service? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get revision of his pay scale i.e. next higher standard pay scale? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Relief.

The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on appreciation of evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to get higher standard pay scale on completion of ten years of regular satisfactory service and also that the plaintiff was entitled to get revision of his pay scale i.e. next higher standard pay scale.

The suit was held to be maintainable. It was also held that the plaintiff had cause of action to file the present suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court also met with the same fate and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was upheld.

The learned Senior DAG challenged the judgment and decree on the plea that plaintiff was not entitled to arrears beyond the period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the suit as such claim would be time barred.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that according to the case set up by the plaintiff he claimed benefit of fixation of salary in higher standard scale w.e.f. 23.7.1996 i.e. the date of completion of ten years service.

The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the plea of the learned senior DAG, Haryana cannot be accepted as it was the duty of the State to have fixed the salary in proper pay scale by giving benefit of ten years regular satisfactory service and the defendant/appellants therefore cannot take benefit of their own wrong to deny the benefit due to the plaintiff/respondent on plea of limitation.

In view of what has been contended above, this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in this appeal:

Whether while granting benefit of arrears of salary in pursuance to the re-fixation of pay scale the arrears are to be restricted to three years and two months under the law of limitation?

On consideration, I find that the substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant State. Once the plaintiff was claiming the revision of pay scale w.e.f. 24.7.1996 i.e. the date of completion of 10 years of regular service, the suit was filed only on 3.9.2004, therefore, he was not entitled to time barred claim. However, the suit is held to be within limitation as it was a case of recurring cause of action as the plaintiff/respondent got a fresh cause of action every month on account of less payment of salary than to which he was entitled to. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant State.

Consequently, the appeal is partly accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is upheld holding plaintiff/respondent entitled to fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 23.7.1996. However, the arrears in view of the benefit of the decree would be restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the suit along with interest @ 6 % per annum.