State of Punjab and Another vs Tarsem Kumar

Sabina, J.—Plaintiff Tarsem Kumar filed a suit for declaration, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Patiala vide judgment

and decree dated 25.7.1996. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and

decree dated 26.7.1997. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para No. 1 of its judgment, are as under:

State of Punjab and others have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.1996 passed by Shri S.C. Marwaha, Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Patiala vide which the suit of Tarsem Kumar plaintiff was partly decreed. The facts of this case in brief are that he joined on

25.5.1977 as Dyeing Master and is having certificate from Government of India, Ministry of Labour in Dyeing and Calico Printing for one year.

Under the Punjab Civil Service Revised scale of Pay Rules 1969 the plaintiff posted was equated with Technician Grade III and that was

implemented with effect from 1.2.1968. vide third Pay Commissions Report Recommendations it was prescribed that there should be a National

Trade Certificate for 2-3 years duration. By virtue of this the plaintiff is entitled to the grade of Technical Grade I, as he has got 14 years of service

to his credit of Rs. 1410-2460. Plaintiff is being given the grade of Rs. 1000-1800 of Junior Technician. The act of not granting the pay scale of

Technician Grade-I is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, malafide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against service rules and

regulations govrning service of the plaintiff, being discriminatory and confiscatory in character. According to Punjab Jail Department Clerical and

Technical States Service Class II Rules, 1962, it has been prescribed that there should be a diploma certificate from a recognised institution in

Dyeing and Calico Printing, but no duration has been fixed. Thus, the special rules govern the Central rules and the plaintiff is entitled to the pay

scale of Technical Grade I. It has further been pleaded that in the year 1976, there was no course of more than one year duration and this was

prescribed in 1985-86 only and Pay Commission only consulted Director Technical Training and Pay Commission did not consult any authority of

Jail department. Thus to prescribe a certificate of 2-3 years course amounts to taking away accrued and acquired rights of the plaintiff. The

Inspector General of Prisons has recommended for grant of grade of Technician Grade I to the employees of the Jail Department, but the

government is not agreeing to the same. Plaintiff has claimed interest 12% per annum to be compounded annually on the due amount to the plaintiff.

Notice u/s 80 CPC was served upon the Defendants but to no effect. The suit was contested by the defendants. They filed written statement

alleging that the suit is time barred; not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction; and premature; and not maintainable in the

present form. The plaintiff is alleged to have no cause of action to file the present suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff joined as Dyeing Master on

25.5.1977 in the scale of Rs. 120-250 and he accepted the offer of appointment conveyed to him vide order dated 12.5.1977. Thus he cannot

claim higher scale. Pay scale of the plaintiff has been revised according to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission and he has been

granted scale of Rs.950-1800 (with initial start of Rs. 1,000/-). He possesses only one year course certificate which is the prescribed qualification

as per Punjab Jail Department Clerical and Technical Service of Class III Rules and he has been given commensurate scale of pay. Mere

possession of diploma of three years or having higher qualification cannot entitle him to seek higher scale. No injustice is stated to have been made

to the plaintiff. All the other averments have been denied by the defendants.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether action of the defendants in not granting grade of Technician Grade I is illegal, null and void? OPP

Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the suit is premature? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Relief.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the action of the defendants in not granting him the pay scale of Technical Grade I. The Courts below

partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that he was entitled for grant of grade of Technical Grade III. DW-1 Harbhagwan Dass in his cross-

examination deposed that according to Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1969, the post of Dyeing Master had been equated with

Technical Grade III. According to the special rules i.e. Punjab Jail Department Rules, 1982, the plaintiff was entitled to pay scale of Technical

Grade I. No course was prescribed for more than one year duration and Pay Commission had only consulted Director Technical Training and did

not consult any authority of Jail Department.

Learned trial Court held that DW-1 had admitted that the grade of Dyeing Master had been equated to Technical Grade-III. The said revision

of pay scales took place in the year 1986. However, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the scale of Technical Grade-I as he had failed

to prove his case. In appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, the findings of the trial Court on these material issues were not

challenged. The only challenge raised was that the trial Court could not give the relief allowed by it to the plaintiff. The said argument by the learned

Government Pleader was rightly discarded by the learned Additional District Judge as the plaintiff was liable to be granted the relief for which he

was entitled. The plaintiff was entitled to pay scale of Technical Grade-III in the latest revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as the post of Dyeing

Master had been equated with Technical Grade- III.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.