Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 Date of decision:- 09.12.2010 Ram Bhagat Sehrawat ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Indresh Goel, Addl. A.G. Haryana. GURDEV SINGH J.(Oral) The appellant-plaintiff, Ram Bhagat Sehrawat, filed suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to two advance increments on account of DA/PP, having acquired higher qualification after entering into service with with respondents-defendants, alongwith the arrears w.e.f. 25.3.1982. His suit was dismissed by Sub Judge 2nd Class, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1986. He preferred the first appeal against that judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 30.5.1987. Feeling aggrieved he preferred this second appeal against those judgments and decrees. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he joined the service of defendants as Math Master on the basis of his qualification as B.Sc. B.Ed. Firstly, he was serving on six monthly basis since 14.8.1975, except break of one or two days, and thereafter he had been serving on permanent basis since 01.1.1980. He acquired higher qualification by passing LLB examination from Delhi University on 25.3.1982 after obtaining necessary permission from Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 -2- the Head of the Institute where he was serving at that time on six monthly basis. On account of that improvement in educational qualification, after joining the service, he has become entitled to two increments of DA/Personal Pay since the day of said examination by virtue of the notification issued by defendant No.1 by way of Circular letter No.1/147/3 P.R.(F.D.)-81 dated 21.12.1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Circular'). He made repeated representations to defendants No.2 and 3 through Head of the Institution for the grant of these two advanced increments of DA/PP but the same have not been granted to him. Therefore, he filed the suit for aforesaid declaration after serving a notice upon the defendants under Section 80 CPC. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement they admitted the payment of advanced increments in the form of DA/PP to the employees acquiring higher qualification after joining the Government service. They also admitted that plaintiff is working as a Maths Master on regular basis since 1.1.1980. They also admitted that the plaintiff was having qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. at the time he joined the service and that he passed LLB examination from the Delhi University on 25.3.1982. They denied the other contentions made in the plaint and pleaded that there were more breaks in the service of the plaintiff from the year 1976 to 1979 on account of summer vacations. As per instructions issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, vide letter dated 18.7.1972, the permission could not have been granted to the adhoc employees to join courses or appear in examinations. The Head of the Institution was not competent to grant such permission. The application filed by the plaintiff for permission to join the LLB was for the examination commencing on 31.10.1981. He conceded the fact that he had already sought admission in LLB and that he had already passed the four terms of examinations before applying for the permission. The benefit of advanced increments was admissible only to such employees, who had appeared in all Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 -3- parts of the particular examination for higher qualification after joining the Government service. As the plaintiff joined the Government service on regular basis w.e.f. 1.1.1980 and had already passed four terms of LLB examination before so joining, so, he is not entitled to the benefit of the instructions contained in the Circular. His case was correctly rejected. They also took up objections to the effect that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the same and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. They challenged the validity of the notice served upon them under Section 80 CPC and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. In replication to the written statement the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He further pleaded that he joined the evening classes during the LLB course after obtaining the necessary permission of the Head of the Institution. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of personal pay as alleged. If so, to what effect?OPP 2. Whether the said suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction?OPD 5. Whether the notice given U/S 80 of C.P.C. is not valid?OPD 6. Relief.” To succeed in the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, R.S. Sapra, Head Clerk as PW2, Tej Krishan Clerk as PW3, Dharam Pal Assistant in the office of D.E.O. Gurgaon as PW4 and Parmeshwar Dass Sharma, Head Master as PW5. On the other hand defendant examined Sukhversha, Head Mistress as DW1 and Darshan Lal, Superintendent as DW2. After going through the evidence so recorded on the record and after hearing counsel for the plaintiff and G.P. for the defendants, the learned Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 -4- trial Court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff and other issues in his favour,and resultantly, dismissed the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The terms of the Circular had been wrongly interpreted by the lower Courts by holding that only regular employees were entitled to the benefit of advanced increments on account of improvement of their qualification after joining the service and that such a benefit could not have been extended to the adhoc employees. He has submitted that the plaintiff was B.Sc B.Ed when he joined the service of the defendants and he passed the LLB examination after joining the service. Therefore, by virtue of the Circular he is entitled to two advanced increments as DA/Personal Pay. The present appeal involves the interpretation of Circular, which was produced before the trial Court as Exhibit P-7. The relevant portion of that Circular is reproduced below :- “I) Personal pay shall be granted to all employees who improve their qualifications after joining Govt. service, if the qualification(s) so acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were recruited at the time of entry into Govt. service, in accordance with the scales and conditions laid down in the succeeding paragraphs sub-paragraphs:- (i) XXX XXX (ii) XXX XXX (iii) XXX XXX (iv) This benefit shall not be admissible to adhoc employees.” The concurrent findings were recorded by both the lower Courts that the benefit of this Circular was not available to the plaintiff as he was adhoc employee and became regular only on 1.1.1980 and he had already passed four Regular Second Appeal No.3185 of 1987 -5- terms of LLB examination before that date. This Circular does not admit of any other interpretation. It speaks of the improvement in the qualification after joining the Government service and that will certainly mean the initiation of the steps by a particular employee for improving his qualification after joining regular service. He cannot take the benefit of the improvement of that qualification, which had already been initiated by him before becoming regular. Otherwise also the benefit of the Circular cannot be given to the plaintiff for having acquired the qualification of LLB. This Circular talks of the improvement of the qualification after joining the Government service if that qualification so acquired is higher than the minimum qualification prescribed for the post on which that employee is recruited at the time of entering into Government service. The plaintiff was recruited as Math Master having the qualification of B.Sc B.Ed. Those degrees were the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Education. The position would have been different if the plaintiff had acquired a higher qualification in the field of science or education. The obtaining of law degree will not make him entitled to increments under that Circular as that degree was nothing to do with the post, on which he was serving. No such substantial question of law arises in the present appeal nor there is any merit. The same, therefore, is dismissed. December 09, 2010 ( GURDEV SINGH ) Vijay Asija JUDGE