s i (^. ^ ^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. I ^ OF 2010 APPUCANT : PLAINTIFF gg|9 GviU K.S. Jasrotia, S/o Shri Thakur Baldeo Singh, R/o Qr.No. 3B, Street No. 32, ?^°-—'^ _ . ._.... /ftod- Sector 8, Bhilai Tahsil and District Durg ?*.—-"'""Y\^-'^A"y'" ^" -^L^- (C.G.) p,.t"'T- Osis**-- RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Versus 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited (A G6vt. of India Undertaking), 5/1, Commissionerate Road, Hastings - Kolkata 22. 2. General Manager 1/C, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Nirman Bhawan, BHILAI, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF C.P.C. S;'3: K^s li @ KS^^ ^,..iS»a^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR &B: Hmi'hfeCSIiriPradiant&nnarMisinra APPLICANT avfl Revifflnn Nu. 18/2010 K.&Jaa-ctia Veraus RESPONDENTS OurinnaiKum-Managfaig Directm', BBndustan Stedworks Cmistruc&m Undted and another AopCTrance: Shri Adhn'aj Surana, counsel for the &pfiKcast. ORALORDER (23.06.^)10) The applicant is aggneved by dismissd <rflris suit by tiie Trid Court as well as by the First Appellate Court which, he had pieferted seefcing recovery of Rs.17,650/- on the grouad tiiat during the relevant pCTiod he had worked as CtfBciating Seniw Projeet Maiager and was Aerefore eatided to the pay scale of Ae post of Senror Project Manager. He has prayed for recovay of the amount which according to him is ihe difiference betwcen his substanrive post and the officiating post of Senior Project Man^er. Accordiag to die applicant he was dischaiging duties and responsilMlities of a higher post vrfuch is equal to the post of Assistant Gaieral Man^a-, therefore he is entitied to recover tiie said amcHint of difference of ^pay. ^"i,''^. ^ °v-y sV"''" % -^2- (2) The respMidents/defendants contesrted Ae suit an subnussion that since tiie aiylicant was never promotel on dw post of Senior Project Man^er a»ivws only directed to pfiBciate cn the said post in place of one Shri Jain, who was faansferred to s<»ne otfaer cffice under Ae respondents, the plaintiffis not entitied forthe diflGaence in pay. (3) HavingperusedAerecOTditisbomeoutfhatdieplaintiffhas aot placed assy document oa record under which he is legally entided to the pay scide admissible to a Senior Prcgect Manager. (4) He was never prmiroted to tbs sud post insteml, as concurrendy held by the courts below he was directed to rfBciate on the post ofSenior Prqect Manager. (5) In the opinion oftius court, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has not comnaitted any CTTW w Ulegality in disnussing tiie plaintiffsuit for recoveiy ofRs.17,650/-. (6) This court does not find any ground for intCTferenc®in the judgment and decree passed by Ihe courts bslow. (7) The instart revisaon Ws and is^erelyy dismissed. Sd,/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^