R. S. A. No. 5009 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 5009 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 07, 2011 S. K. Awasthi .... Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. C. Arora, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 204-C of 2011 : Application is allowed and certified copies of judgment and decree of the trial court annexed with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No.14778-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 02 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No.14779-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is R. S. A. No. 5009 of 2010 (O&M) 2 accompanied by affidavit, delay of 135 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff S. K. Awasthi, having been unsuccessful in both the courts below, is in second appeal. Plaintiff retired as Dental Mechanic on 31.07.2003 from the service of defendants/respondents (State of Punjab and others). Plaintiff's grievance relates to fixation of his pay in revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 pursuant to Punjab Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1998 (in short – Revised Pay Rules). The plaintiff alleged that his request to re-fix his pay in the light of Rule 11 of the Revised Pay Rules has not been acceded to by the defendants and on account thereof, he is suffering pecuniary loss. Order dated 27.06.2003 passed by defendant no.4 fixing pay of the plaintiff has been challenged to be illegal and null and void etc. being in violation of the Revised Pay Rules. Order dated 07.11.2005 passed by Special Secretary rejecting representation of the plaintiff for fixing his pay in master scale by relaxing Rule 11 of the Revised Pay Rules has also been challenged in the suit. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction for re-fixation of his pay and pension. The defendants, however, claimed that plaintiff's pay has been rightly fixed in accordance with Revised Pay Rules. The suit was also R. S. A. No. 5009 of 2010 (O&M) 3 alleged to be time barred. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Perusal of the table depicting pay fixation of the plaintiff under the Revised Pay Rules, as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court, reveals that revised pay of the plaintiff has been rightly fixed in accordance with the Revised Pay Rules. However, the main grievance of the plaintiff appears to be that he stagnated at the highest of the revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 itself and therefore, he wanted fixation of his pay in master scale by relaxation of Rule 11 of the Revised Pay Rules. However, defendants have rejected the plaintiff's representation for relaxation of Rule 11 of the Revised Pay Rules. I am afraid the Courts cannot mandate the State to relax any provision of the Revised Pay Rules. The said power vests with the State and if the State of Punjab has refused to relax Rule 11 of the Revised Pay Rule, as sought by the plaintiff, defendants cannot be directed by mandatory injunction to relax the said rule. Plaintiff has not R. S. A. No. 5009 of 2010 (O&M) 4 been able to depict that rejection of the plaintiff's request for relaxation of the said rule is arbitrary or unreasonable. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. It is correct, as sought to be argued by the counsel for the appellant, that plaintiff-appellant has stagnated in the revised pay scale. However, when the pay of the plaintiff has been fixed in accordance with the Revised Pay Rules, the Court cannot direct the defendants to provide any additional monetary benefit to the plaintiff on this ground. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 07, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE