- (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant who happened to be Patwari, for declaration that the orders of the Collector Rohtak dated 3.3.79, 22.6.79 and 6.9.79 followed by subsequent directions given to the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh for deducting a sum of Rs. 4313.50 P. are void, non est mala fide arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant joined in the Revenue Department in the year 1947 as Patwari and was retired from service with effect from 12.6.79. The plaintiff according to his case, was working in the scale of Rs. 110-4-130/5-160-5-225 and was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 130/- per month before 1.4.68 and was to be paid Rs. 135/- per month from 1.4.68. No order was passed against him either refusing or allowing him to cross efficiency bar which was due on 1.4.68. On the other hand, the plaintiff was allowed increments. Further the case of the plaintiff was that he was due to cross second efficiency bar with effect from 1978 when order Exhibit P-4 was passed on 3.3.79 withholding efficiency bar not only for one year but for all the ten years by a consolidated order. It was further the case of the plaintiff appellant that on 12th June, 1979 he was retired from service and thereafter another order dated 22.6.79 Exb. P-5 was passed stopping his efficiency bar from 1.4.79 to 1.4.80. Still another order Exh. P-6 dated 6.9.79 ordering deduction of Rs. 4313.50 was passed. As has been mentioned above, all the orders were challenged by the appellant including the directions issued to the Accountant General, Haryana.
(3.) The case was hotly contested by the State of Haryana. On the basis of the pleas taken by the parties, the trial Court struck the following issues: 1. Whether the order of Collector dated. 3.3.79, 22.6.79 and 6.9.79 are illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed as alleged in the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether a valid notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has been served upon the defendant? OPP 3. Whether the suit has not been properly stamped? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of all causes of action? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 7. Relief. Under Issue No. 1, the trial Court held that all the orders of the Collectors were illegal and without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed. Under issue No. 2 it was held that a valid notice was given. No argument was advanced by the counsel for the State under issue No. 3 and, therefore, the same was dedded in favour of the appellant holding that the suit was properly stamped. Under Issue No. 4 the suit was held to be within time. Issues No's. 5 and 6 were decided against the defendant. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the State of Haryana went up in appeal before the first appellate Court which has been allowed. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.;