RSA No. 459 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 459 of 2009 Decided on : 22-04-2009 State of Haryana through Collector, Fatehabad and others ....Appellants VERSUS Radhey Shyam ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dt. 5.6.2008 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 8.11.2008. The respondent has filed a suit pleading that he is Matriculate and holding a diploma in diesel mechanic trade from ITI, Hisar and he was appointed as Helper Diesel Mechanic on daily wages in December, 1993 and he was assured of all benefits which were being admissible to other regular employees. His services were regularized on 15.3.2004 in the pay scale of 2550-3200. He was promoted as Assistant Fitter on 20.11.2006 in the pay scale of 3050-4350. He pleaded that since he was holding diploma from ITI, he was entitled to pay scale of 4000-6000 as was admissible to the persons holding such qualification in accordance with the instructions of the State of Haryana dated 23.8.1990 and 26.7.1991. He also pleaded that he was entitled to arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f RSA No. 459 of 2009 2 1.10.2003. The appellants who were arrayed as defendants contested the suit and pleaded that aforesaid instructions dated 23.8.1990 and 26.7.1991 are not applicable to the case of the plaintiff-respondent as the rules Haryana Department (Transport Department) notified regarding recruitment and conditions of service qua appointment to the Transport Department (Group C) Haryana Roadways Services and as per the rule Assistant Fitter is kept in the pay scale of 950-1400 and revised scale of 3050-4350. However, qualifications of the plaintiff were not denied. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 on the grounds as alleged?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction against the defendants on the grounds as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder o the necessary parties?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 6. Relief. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the plaintiff- respondent was entitled to the relief as prayed for and his suit was decreed. This has resulted in the filing of the instant regular second appeal by the State of Haryana. Learned counsel for the State contended that when the plaintiff- RSA No. 459 of 2009 3 respondent was appointed there were no rules in force and that these rules came into existence on 6.1.95 regulating the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed in Transport Department Group C and according to these rules, the respondent was not entitled to any benefit of the pay scale which he was seeking. No other point was urged. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments and the notification which has been produced before this Court. The case of the appellants is belied from the bare perusal of the notification dated 23.8.1990. The notification is of the year 1990 wherein it was provided as under:- Sr.No. Name of the Post Existing pay scale Modified scale of pay w.e.f 1.5.1990 40. General Recommendations 750-910-775-1025 1200-2040 regarding technical posts in various 880-1150 departments for which minimum 950-1400 educational qualification prescribed 950-1500 in Matric with ITI certificate/ Polytechnic The aforesaid pay scales were further revised so as to enable these persons with technical qualifications to obtain a pay scale of 4000- 6000. This Court in 'Raj Kiran versus State of Haryana' 2003(1) RSJ (P&H)119 and 'Attar Singh and another versus State of Haryana' 2003(1) RSJ(P&H) 158 has held that persons who are having Matric with ITI diploma have to be considered as holding technical posts and are entitled to the pay scale of 4000-6000. The facts of the said cases were more or less identical to the facts of the present case and moreover rules of 1995 could be made applicable prospectively and in this view of the matter, contention RSA No. 459 of 2009 4 of the learned counsel for the appellants is seemingly mis-placed and no infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned Courts below. Accordingly, the appeal is being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 22 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge