STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALKARAN SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 18,2006

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
BALKARAN SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MRS MEENA TEVARY VS. JUGAL KISHORE RATNU [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-178] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AVADHESH PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-192] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. C R GANDHI [LAWS(GJH)-2008-4-212] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS VS. PARSHOTTAM H CHUDASAMA [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-458] [REFERRED]
M. NARAYANASWAMY VS. M. NARAYANAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-205] [REFERRED TO]
K P DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. TRISHUI PICKLE INDUS [LAWS(J&K)-2008-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
C S PATEL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. IBRAHIM ABDUL DAL [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
TRIENITY PRIME PROPERTY PROJECTS LLP VS. SAMRAT ASSOCIATES [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
KARMA DOMA GYATOS ALIAS BABILA KAZI VS. KESANG CHODEN [LAWS(SIK)-2009-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT ORS VS. JETHALAL KACHARABHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-334] [REFERRED TO]
LEELAMBAR SINGH GOND VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2009-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
G K GUPTA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR CIDC [LAWS(CHH)-2011-7-1] [REFERRED]
PRASAD P VS. UNION OF INDIA; BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD; DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,; DIRECTOR GENERAL; COMMANDER; OFFICER COMMANDING; KRIPAL SINGH; BIJU R ; VARGHESE NL; RAMESH SINGH [LAWS(SIK)-2014-12-5] [REFERRED]
TARSEM SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE [LAWS(P&H)-2012-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
C. N. VASANTHAKUMARI VS. M. NARAYANAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-204] [REFERRED TO]
A.V. SEBASTIAN VS. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-582] [REFERRED TO]
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. VS. PRADEEP KUMAR KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI BIRLA SAWHNEY VS. TIRATHRAM SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-380] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIN SINGH PENDRE VS. STATE OF C.G [LAWS(CHH)-2009-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
GHAMAND SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER, BASTAR DIVISION [LAWS(CHH)-2010-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAGWAN SAWHNEY VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
D. ANJAPPA VS. MARAPPA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD VS. MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMID KHAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-110] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KUMAR NANGIA VS. HARJINDER PAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
P.V. VISWANATHAM VS. HARIPAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
CELINE DZUVICHU VS. APRALE KIRHA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE FARRUKHABAD CITY GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. ROSE MARY LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-160] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHCHANDRA NARANBHAI NANDHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-468] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIRI DEVI VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
C. N. LEELAVATHI VS. M. NARAYANAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-206] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR VS. MUSA ISMAIL AND ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-446] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-467] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. VIVEKANAND SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-213] [REFERRED TO]
VISWANATHAN VS. HARIPAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-158] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals by special leave are by the State of Punjab and its Director of Agriculture. They challenge the judgments and decrees in three different suits filed by three officers of the Agricultural Department of the State, essentially claiming pay at enhanced scale in two of the suits and seniority over certain others in the third suit. Civil Appeal Nos. 5847 of 2005 and 5854 of 2005 go together and the issue involved in C.A. No. 5853 of 2005 is slightly different though based on the same claim. The suits were decreed by the trial court. The decrees were affirmed in appeal. The Second Appellate Court declined to interfere. Hence these appeals.
(2.)The respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 665 of 1993 on 20.12.1993 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh praying for a declaration that the Office Order dated 13.3.1980 passed by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab in fixing the pay of the plaintiff in the scale of Rs. 940-1850/- instead of in the scale of Rs.1200-1850/- is illegal, null, void, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and equity, for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1200- 1850/- as against Rs. 940-1850/-with effect from 1.1.1978 applicable to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and entitled to the payment of all other service benefits including yearly increments, arrears and interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with effect from 1.1.1978 till the date of payment with costs of the suit. At the time of the suit, the plaintiff was working as a Joint Director, Agriculture and was on deputation in The Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited. The plaintiff was selected, according to him, to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture. But the order of appointment produced by him and marked as Exhibit P-1 shows that the plaintiff was appointed to Punjab Agricultural Services Class-I temporarily by direct recruitment in the time scale of Rs.400-30-550/40-750/50-1250 and was posted as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Pulses), Bhatinda. The plaint proceeds on the basis that on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the Government of Punjab revised the pay-scales of its employees from 1.1.1978. The pay- scale of Deputy Directors in all services was given as Rs.1200-1850/- from the old scale of Rs.400-1250/-. When this decision to revise the pay-scale was brought to the notice of the Director of Agriculture, he found that in the Agricultural Department there was no post of Deputy Director as such and that the appointment of all those working as Deputy Directors was only to Punjab Agricultural Service Class-I and that the scale of pay of Class-I officers in the original scale of Rs.400-1250/- had been enhanced only to Rs. 940-1850/-. He therefore made an endorsement that the revised scale of pay of Deputy Directors in the Agricultural Department, they being officers of Class-I was only Rs. 940-1850/- and consequently that amount alone was payable. It may be noted that this endorsement was made as early as on 13.3.1980. The plaintiff was being paid salary only at that scale from 1.1.1978. The plaintiff came to Court challenging that order only on 20.12.1993, more than 12 years after the order or endorsement. The case of the plaintiff was that in the case of one Mewa Singh, who was also a Deputy Director, the Court had passed a decree in the year 1991 declaring him entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1200-1850/- and when that was done and the State accepted the said decision and paid Mewa Singh, the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that notice not having been responded to by the defendants, he was filing the suit. It is appropriate to refer to paragraph 9 of the plaint in this connection. The plaintiff pleaded:
"That cause of action firstly arose in 1980 when the plaintiff became eligible for the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-1850/- with effect from 1.1.1978 as per Annexure P-2, thereafter the cause of action arose on 23.10.1992, when the pay of Shri Mewa Singh Sonar was fixed in the scale of Rs.1200-1850/- by Defendant No.2, but the plaintiff was not given the same scale and finally on 16.6.1993, when legal notice under Section 80 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 was served upon the defendants."

(3.)As noticed, the claim of plaintiff was that he had been appointed as a Deputy Director even initially and the revised scale of pay of Deputy Directors had been shown in the concerned Order as Rs.1200-1850/- and consequently, he is entitled to salary at that scale from 1.1.1978 as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission accepted by the State of Punjab and brought into effect.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.