RSA No.124/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.124/2010 Date of decision: 12.12.2011. Ishwar Singh ....................Appellant v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Hry Agricultural University .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the appellant. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present regular second appeal has been filed by plaintiff/appellant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for declaration filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court which was further affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Facts in brief are that plaintiff was engaged by the respondent University as a daily paid labour. In the year 1993, as per notification of the Haryana Government, he was regularized against a class-IV post of Animal Attendant in the pay scale of 750-940. During the interregnum i.e. from 01.07.1983 to 01.04.1993 he had been assigned various jobs viz., from 01.07.1983 to 29.10.1990 as a Game Attendant; from 30.10.1990 to 31.03.1992 as a Cattle Attendant; from 01.04.1992 RSA No.124/2010 2 to 30.07.1992 as a Mali; from 31.07.1992 to 27.02.1993 as a Laboratory Attendant; from 01.04.1993 to 26.06.1993 as Messenger and from 17.06.1993 the plaintiff was allegedly working as Welder at Kaul Station. It was claimed by the plaintiff/appellant that since on the date of regularization of his services i.e. 01.04.1993 he was working as welder, therefore, he was liable to be regularized on that post and entitled to get the pay scale of 1200-2040. Since the plaintiff/appellant was not regularized on the aforesaid post he represented to the respondent/defendants numerous times and ultimately vide speed post sent on 20.10.2004. Since the claim of the plaintiff/appellant did not find favour with the respondent/defendants, he filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to get the pay scale being drawn by a Welder on the principle of equal pay for equal work with the consequential relief of permanent injunction(prohibitory & mandatory) directing the defendants to pay him salary on the post of Welder. Upon notice defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The claim of the plaintiff/appellant was contested on the grounds of limitation, maintainability, jurisdiction, misjoinder and non joinder, cause of action etc. On merits it was alleged that the casual labourers who had served for more than five years as on 31.03.1993 were regularlized on the post held by them as on 31.03.1993 on the State Government pattern. It was further alleged that on 31.03.1993 the plaintiff was working as casual labourer without any post and his RSA No.124/2010 3 services were regularized as daily paid labourer(DPL) on the supernumerary post created with the approval of board of management of the respondent University and subsequently in the year 1995 in terms of the instructions issued by the State Government the DPLs so regularized were designated on the basis of work done by them prior to their regularization on 01.04.1993. It was further stated that for most of the time the plaintiff had worked as casual labourer in the dairy farm at college of Agriculture, Kaul and as such he was given designation of animal attendant vide letter dated 14.02.1995 by the Dean, College of Animal Sciences CCS, HAU, Hisar. It was further case of the respondents that as per character and antecedents form filled up by the appellant he was illiterate whereas for the post of Welder the qualification prescribed was(i) middle or equivalent, (ii) trade certificate in welding from ITI with minimum three years practical experience or atleast seven years experience in welding; further person knowing Tin Smithy were to be given preference. It was thus stated that plaintiff did not fulfil the qualification prescribed for the post of Welder. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence the present regular second appeal. RSA No.124/2010 4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees without applying judicial mind and by ignoring the fact that at the time of regularization petitioner was working on the post of Welder. He further submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the qualification for the post of Welder were relaxed vide Ex.P-1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. While deciding the claim of the appellant for regularization against the post of Welder in the pay scale of 1200-2040 it was found by the Courts below that his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 and admittedly before 01.04.1993 he was working as a casual labourer as mentioned in memo no.COAK/1993/49-28-30(Ex.P-4). As regards relaxation in qualification prescribed for the post of Welder it was found that the qualifications for the post of Welder were relaxed by the Board of Management of the defendant/University in its meeting held on 23.10.1997 and since plaintiff/appellant was seeking his regularization on the post of Welder w.e.f. 01.04.1993 hence admittedly at that time he was not qualified to be regularized/appointed on the post of Welder. It was further noticed by the trial Court that plaintiff himself admitted in his cross examination that he was illiterate which fact was also proved from his attestation form Ex.D-5 whereas the qualification for the post of Welder as RSA No.124/2010 5 mentioned in Ex.D-3 was middle or equivalent etc. etc. Thus on this score also the plaintiff was not entitled to be regulaized on the post of Welder. The another factor which weighed with the learned Courts below was that except his solitary statement, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that he was working on the post of Welder or that he was qualified for the said post. In view of the above finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 12.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge