R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.8.2010 ... State of Punjab ................Appellant vs. Amolak Raj .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Sh. N.D. Kalra, Advocate for the respondent. ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a regular second appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 17.4.1996 passed by Mrs. Sudarshan Modi, Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant-State against the judgment dated 31.10.1994 passed by Sh. Inderjit Singh, Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, was dismissed. Amolak Raj – the original plaintiff, filed suit for declaration to the effect that action of the defendant by not granting the scale of post of Superintendent of Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and order dated 29.1.1990 rejecting his representation for grant of that scale is R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -2- illegal, void, ultra vires, mala fide, without jurisdiction. It is pleaded that plaintiff is working as Supervisor, Dharmarth, office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, since 20.8.1971. The post of Supervisor Dharmarth is a solitary post in whole of Punjab. The scale of Supervisor Dharmarth at that time was Rs.160-400 when the plaintiff was appointed. The plaintiff was confirmed as Supervisor Dharmarth by the Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Chandigarh vide order dated 4.10.1972. The scale of Supervisor Dharmarth was equivalent to the Assistant of Deputy Commissioner Office, Patiala. The scale of Rs.160-400 was revised to Rs.570-1080 vide Government order dated 24.10.1980 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala recommended to the Government for the grant of scale of post of Superintendent Grade II i.e. Rs.800-1400 to the plaintiff which was existing at that time. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala again recommended on 27.9.1982 that plaintiff be granted the scale of Superintendent Grade II i.e. Rs.800-1400 and the Government finally approved for the grant of scale of Superintendent Grade II i.e. Rs.800-1400 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was placed at par with the Superintendent of Deputy Commissioner Office, Patiala and his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.800-1400 and he was also granted arrears in the pay scale of Rs.800-1400. That thereafter the Government issued letter No. 4/15/79-J III/Rev/10830 dated 18.7.1986 mentioning that the post of Supervisor Dharmarth is to be upgraded in view of the performance of the incumbent as pay scale of this post is much less than that of the duties performed by the Supervisor Dharmarth. In accordance with the proposal sought by R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -3- the Government vide letter dated 18.7.1986, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, sent the recommendations on 26.11.1986 for the grant of scale of Rs.940-1850 to the plaintiff. This recommendation was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala keeping in view the duties performed by the plaintiff on the said post. The plaintiff also performed the duties of Superintendent apart from the duties of Supervisor Dharmarth in the scale of Rs.800-1400. The scale of Rs.800-1400 was revised to Rs.1800-3200 relating to the post of Superintendent Grade II of Deputy Commissioner Officer, Patiala vide notification dated 20.1.1988. The plaintiff was granted the scale of Superintendent Grade II of Rs.1800-3200 which was revised vide Government notification dated 20.1.1988. The pay of plaintiff was again fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 equivalent to the Superintendent Grade II of Deputy Commissioner Office, Patiala. The Punjab Government upgraded the post of Superintendent Grade II of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala in the State to the level of Superintendent Grade I in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 20.1.1989 and accordingly the Revenue Department issued order dated 16.3.1989. The Government again vide notification dated 15.6.1990 revised the grade of Superintendent of that of Rs.2000-3500 to that of Rs.2200-4000. The plaintiff represented to the Government vide representation dated 3.4.1989 for grant of scale of post of Superintendent. The Government passed vague order dated 29.1.1990 rejecting the representation of the plaintiff . So, the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 has been sought. The suit was contested by the defendant. It is pleaded that R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -4- plaintiff was confirmed as Supervisor Dharmarth in the scale of Rs.160-400 by the Secretary to Government Punjab. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala recommended to allow the scale of Rs.800- 1400 to the Government, which was allowed w.e.f. 23.5.1983. It was denied that plaintiff was placed at par with Superintendent of Office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala as nature of job of two posts is quite different. On persistent demand of Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, recommended the scale of Rs.950-1850 for the post of Supervisor, but there is not parity between the two posts viz. Superintendent of Deputy Commissioner Office, Patiala and Supervisor Dharmarth. The duty performed by both are different. The main job of Supervisor Dharmarth is of field nature and he has to supervise of the Dharmarth Institutions and properties attached thereto, whereas the nature of job of Superintendent, Deputy Commissioner's office is ministerial/clerical one with more responsibilities. The pay scale of Supervisor, Dharmarth of Rs.1800- 3200 was granted to the plaintiff. His representation was rejected as he was not entitled to the scale of Rs.2200-4000. In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the pleadings as in the plaint and denied the contents of written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether action of the defendant by not granting the scale of the post of Superintendent of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the order dated 29.1.1990 rejecting the representation of the plaintiff for the grant of scale of post R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -5- of Superintendent is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Relief. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 31.10.1994 passed by Sh. Inderjit Singh Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, the State of Punjab preferred the Ist Appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Mrs. Sudarshan Modi, Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 17.4.1996. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 17.4.1996 and 31.10.1994, referred to above, the present regular second appeal has been filed. The appellant has not framed the substantial questions of law. However, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel has submitted that pay scale of Supervisor Dharmarth and Superintendent Grade II cannot be equated and both the Courts below have misinterpreted and misread the evidence on the file in this regard. It is contended that duties for the post of Supervisor Dharmarth and Superintendent are different and as such the same pay scale cannot be granted to the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 2765 of 1996 -6- I have carefully considered the said submissions and have also gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of counsel for both the parties. The witness produced by the defendant, DW-1 Pritam Singh, Senior Assistant, in the cross examination has admitted that plaintiff was placed at par with Superintendent of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. He has also admitted that scale of Rs.1800-3200 equivalent to the post of Superintendent Grade II of Deputy Commissioner's Officer, was upgraded in the State of the level of the Superintendent Grade I, in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 20.1.1989, which was later on revised to Rs.2200-4000. So, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that in view of the admission of the defendant through DW-1, the plaintiff is entitled to the scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. The substantial question of law raised by the State counsel mentioned above, stands answered against the appellant, in view of the discussion made above. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. ( K.C. Puri ) 13.8.2010 Judge chugh