IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA 84 of 1996. Date of decision March 17, 2009. Sh. Prem Chand and others. ….Appellants. Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. B.S.Attri, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This is the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/ appellants herein. The plaintiffs who were working as Deputy Rangers in Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry instituted a suit for mandatory injunction directing the university to provide them all facilities and service benefits at par with those working in the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh. The learned trial Court on the only settled issue concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - grant of House Rent Allowance in terms of clause 6 (5) of Chapter VI of the Statute of the University. In reaching this conclusion, the learned trial Court relied upon evidence of PW-1 Tilak Raj, PW-2 Devinder Singh and Ex. PW-1/A and also letters dated 5.4.1973 and 3.11.1976 addressed by the Deputy Secretary (Finance) to the Chief Conservator of Forests with respect to grant of House Rent Allownaces to the Deputy Rangers. The Chief Conservator of Forests consequently addressed communications dated 8.3.1977 Ex.PW-7/C to subordinate forest officers for grant of house rent allowances etc. The plaintiffs also proved on record Ex.PW-2/G, letter dated 30.1.1999 from the Deputy Registrar to the Dean of the University asking for release of the House Rent Allowance. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held that the undisputed fact was that the plaintiff-appellants were working as Deputy Rangers in terms of the Statute referred to above, the plaintiffs were entitled to all allowances, namely Hill Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance and other local allowances. The other reliefs as claimed were disallowed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs are now in appeal. This appeal was admitted on 4.6.1996 with a simple order ‘admitted’ and no question of law was formulated for determination of this Court. However, by - 3 - its order dated 20.8.2007, three questions were determined for adjudication of this Court which are: 1. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has wrongly rejected the application moved by the plaintiff-appellants for additional evidence? 2. Whether the learned lower Appellate court has misread the provisions of the statute of the respondent University whereby it has been provided that service conditions of the plaintiff- appellants are at par with those who are working at the same post with the Himachal Pradesh Government? 3. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court was duty bound to give separate findings to the cross objections raised by the plaintiff-appellants, does the mechanical approach in this regard vitiate the judgment and decree? I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the first question, I do not find that the learned Court was wrong in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court holds that the application was nothing but an attempt to fill in lacunae in evidence which cannot be permitted under Order 41 Rule 27. The reasoning of the learned appellate Court cannot be faulted with. This question is decided against the appellants. Taking up the third question, all that need be said is that the cross objections as filed were determined by the learned appellate Court after due - 4 - consideration of the material on record. There is no illegality on record which has been committed by the Courts below. Question No. 2 as raised is vital for the purpose of determination of controversy before this Court. The judgment of the learned appellate Court shows that this point has been dealt with in a very slip shod manner. The learned Court holds that Chapter 6 of the Statute of the University envisages provision for pay scales only. The Court reiterates that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish their claim in accordance with law. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Chapter VI clause 6(5) reads: “6 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter III, IV and V of the Statutes, the scales of pay to be prescribed by the Board shall follow the pattern given in the succeeding clauses of this Chapter. 2 to 4……. 5. In granting the Hill Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance and other local allowances (other than DA and ADA) Himachal Pradesh Government pattern shall be followed.” It would thus be apparent that the reliefs granted by the learned trial Court were based on a correct interpretation of the Statutes as also the material on record. There is no evidence on record to show that the - 5 - defendant-respondent University is not bound to pay Compensatory Hill Allowance. This question is, therefore, decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. However, while granting this relief, Notification dated 6.6.2000 has to be considered. It reads: “ Dr. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE 7 FORESTRY, SOLAN. ‘GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BRANCH’ NO. UHF.REGR/GA/5-53/2K/-5245-5300, Dated 6.6.2000. NOTIFICATION The Board of Management vide item No. 14 of the proceedings of its 53rd meeting held on 16.5.2000 has been pleased to abolish the provisions of rent free accommodation in respect of employees of the University who are entitled for rent free accommodation including Hostel Wardens, on H.P. Govt. pattern with immediate effect. As a result thereof, all the previous notifications issued in this regard vide No. 8-16/82 (HPKV) Vol. II/27847- 922 dated 15.7.82, No. 5-1/86 (Vol. II)/-GAD/- 16021-60 dated 18.11.86 and No. Bud.2-7/90- 1275-1305, dated 14.5.1990 are hereby withdrawn and the employees who are enjoying the facility of rent free residential accommodation will now have to pay the license fee as per category / type of accommodation, as fixed from time to time by the University. Sd/- REGISTRAR.” Photo copy of this notification has been placed on record of the case. In these circumstances, the - 6 - judgment of the trial Court shall be restricted for the grant of benefit only up to 6.6.2000 when the notification has been issued. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. March 17, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.