R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.11.2009 State of Punjab and another ......Appellants Versus Tarsem Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. K.G.Chaudhary,Advocate, for the respondent. **** 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 R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 2 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 R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 3 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 under Section 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 R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 4 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:- “1. Whether action of the defendants in not granting grade of Technician Grade I is illegal, null and void? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 5 purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Whether the suit is premature? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. 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 R.S.A.No. 32 of 1998 (O&M) 6 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. (SABINA) JUDGE November 04, 2009 anita