Regular Second Appeal No.2657 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2657 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 17, 2009 PRTC Patiala ...........Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Jarnail Singh filed a suit for declaration against the defendants for not granting the salary to him in the regular grade and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant him salary in the regular grade. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.In brief the plaintiff's version is that he was appointed as Carpenter in defendant corporation and he resumed his duties on 1.6.1983. His work and conduct remained quite satisfactory through out his service, but in the year 1986 his services terminated. He challenged his termination order in the labour Regular Second Appeal No.2657 of 2009 2 court and the said order was quashed by the labour court and the award was published on 24.5.1995, the plaintiff was reinstated into service vide order dated 15.11.1995. Thereafter he requested the defendants through various representations to grant him the grade of the post of carpenter or grant him the salary of the regular carpenter, but the defendants did not pay any heed. It has been further averred that Gurcharan Singh, who was also appointed as Carpenter alongwith the plaintiff and his services were also terminated, who also challenged his termination order before the labour court and the Labour court also quashed his termination and vide office order No.208/Pepsu Road Transport Corporation/PD-1 dated 2.7.1998 he was granted the pay scale of the post of carpenter and the case of the plaintiff squarely falls on the similar lines. The plaintiff challenged the action of the defendants on the grounds mentioned in para No.7 (i) to (vi). Hence, the present suit for declaration and also for mandatory injunction. 3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. The plaintiff's suit has been challenged on the grounds it being time barred, not maintainable and justifiable, being false, frivolous and baseless and the plaintiff having no cause of action to file the present suit. On merits, it has been averred that the case of the Gurcharan Singh is altogether different from the case of the plaintiff. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as labourer and the labour court gave award in his favour and thereafter he was reinstated. All the averments of the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.2657 of 2009 3 have been specifically denied and has prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Admittedly, the plaintiff had joined as a carpenter on 1.6.1983 and was placed at serial No.45. Gurcharan Singh was placed at serial No.46 and he had joined as a carpenter on 25.9.1984. Services of both the plaintiff as well as Gurcharan Singh were terminated. Both of them sought a reference to the Labour Court and vide award dated 24.5.1995 Exhibit D1, plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Gurcharan Singh was also ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits by the Labour Court. DW1 Subhash Chand, in his cross-examination, admitted that the services of both the plaintiff and Gurcharan singh were terminated and they had challenged their termination order by seeking reference to the Labour Court and they were ordered to be reinstated. Regular scale had been granted to Gurcharan Singh vide order dated 2.7.1998. In these circumstances, the trial Court on Regular Second Appeal No.2657 of 2009 4 the basis of the statement made by DW1 Subhash Chand rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that he was entitled to salary from the date when Gurcharan Singh a similarly situated employee was allowed the pay scale. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 17, 2009 arya