N.K. Kapoor, J. - (1.) This is defendants appeal against the judgments of the Courts below.
(2.) Briefly put, Jarnail Singh joined police department as a Selection Grade Constable on 25.10.1949 who worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and was promoted as Sub Inspector in June, 1963. The plaintiff was sent on deputation to Special Frontier Force which forms part of the armed forces of the Government of India and so was posted as Assistant Company Commandant in the pay scale of Rs. 450-950 w.e.f. 4.8.1963. Subsequently, on the basis of letter issued by the Cabinet Secretariat dated 25.1.1967 the date of appointment of the plaintiff as Assistant Company Commandant was changed to 7.8.1964 as only nine posts of Assistant Company Commandant were sanctioned. Lien of the plaintiff was adjusted with 75th Battalion, P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. The plaintiff was promoted as Deputy Commandant equivalent to the rank of Substantive Major in the army w.e.f. 27.1.1981 and notification to this effect was issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Govt, of India, on 10.3.1981. It so happened that for some personal reasons the plaintiff sought voluntary retirement from his present posting of Deputy Commandant. Since he had been promoted as Deputy Commandant, the plaintiff sought fixation of his pay to the rank of Deputy Commandant whose case was referred to the Punjab Police Department and the same is still pending. The plaintiff sought a direction from the Court to the effect that he be awarded increments, enhanced pension and gratuity etc.
(3.) Defendants put in appearance who almost admitted the factual aspects of the case but all the same resisted on the ground that there has been be concurrence of the parent department with regard to the promotion of the plaintiff to the rank of Deputy Commandant and so the plaintiff is not entitled to higher grade. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the controversy between parties? OPD 4. Relief.;