A.N. Jindal, J. - (1.) CM No. 1476 -C of 2011
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 68 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 547 of 2011 The trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.11.2007 had decreed the suit of plaintiff -Vijay Kumar Walia, predecessors -in -interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') and had directed the defendants -respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') to step up/refix the pay scale of the plaintiff as per relevant instructions of the State Government/Board and to release his arrears, if any, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from its due date till realization of the amount. However, the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment dated 15.06.2010, accepted the appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment and the suit of Vijay Kumar Walia was dismissed. As such, the legal heirs of Vijay Kumar Walia -appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the appellants') have preferred this appeal. The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff was initially appointed as Mandi Supervisor on 26.06.1970 with the Market Committee, Ambala Cantt in the pay scale of Rs. 110 -225 plus Rs. 25/ - as special pay. His pay scale was revised to Rs. 140 -300. As on 08.06.1971, his pay was fixed at Rs. 140/ - with effect from 27.03.1979 and at Rs. 200/ - with effect from 01.04.1979. However, he did not adopt the said pay scale as on 01.04.1979. One Fakir Chand Gupta, another employee of the defendants posted at Narwana, was initially appointed as Auction Recorder on 19.01.1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 110 -225, which is a junior post to that of a Mandi Supervisor. As such, the aforesaid Fakir Chand Gupta was junior to the plaintiff even from the date of his appointment and was promoted as Fee Collector/Mandi Supervisor on 09.08.1979. As such, Vijay Kumar Walia was 9 years senior to Fakir Chand Gupta in the cadre of Fee Collector/Mandi Supervisor. It was further averred that prior to his promotion, Fakir Chand Gupta was drawing Rs. 160/ - as basic pay plus Rs. 15/ - as special pay, whereas the plaintiff was drawing Rs. 200/ -. On revision of the pay scales with effect from 01.04.1979, vide circular of defendant No. 1 -Board dated 24.09.1985, the pay of Fakir Chand Gupta was revised. On the other hand, the pay of Vijay Kumar Walia was fixed at Rs. 585/ - on 01.04.1980, Rs. 600/ - on 01.04.1981, Rs. 620/ - on 01.04.1982 and Rs. 640/ - on 01.04.1983 in comparison to the pay of Fakir Chand Gupta, which was fixed at Rs. 760/ - on 01.04.1983. Thus, he was entitled to refixation of his pay equal to the pay of Fakir Chand Gupta, his junior.
(3.) ON notice, the defendants filed their joint written statement, wherein, besides taking preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Court and locus standi etc., they have denied that Fakir Chand Gupta was junior to the plaintiff from the date of his appointment because both the posts are separate. It was averred that Fakir Chand Gupta was drawing Rs. 600/ - as basic pay on 01.04.1979 and Rs. 620/ - on 02.04.1979 as Auction Recorder in the revised pay scales and selection grade for the said post in the pay scale of Rs. 400 -600 and Rs. 480 -760 respectively. As such, his pay was fixed at Rs. 640/ - on 09.08.1979 on his promotion as Mandi Supervisor -cum -Fee Collector. It was submitted that the plaintiff and the said Fakir Chand Gupta were from different cadres. As such, the Government instructions were not attracted in the case in hand. The pay of the plaintiff was fixed at Rs. 585/ - on 01.04.1980, Rs. 600/ - on 01.04.1981, Rs. 620/ - on 01.04.1982 and Rs. 640/ - on 01.04.1983, whereas the pay of Fakir Chand Gupta was fixed as stated above. It was further submitted that the hike in the pay of Fakir Chand Gupta was due to the benefits available to him on the post of Auction Recorder on account of revision of pay scales and getting selection grade. As such, the plaintiff was not entitled to those benefits because he had not worked on the post of Auction Recorder.;