- (1.) Defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate Court, in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff filed the suit taking the averments that he was appointed as Equipment Attendant with Audio Visual Aids Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.35-1-45/- plus other allowances admissible, vide order dated 18.2.1969, which was identical to the scale of pay then admissible to Jamadar/Daftri and that the said scale was revised retrospectively to Rs.75-1-105/-, whereas scale of the Peon at the time of his appointment was Rs.30-35/-, which on revision was enhanced to Rs.70-3-95/-. On further revision of the scales of pay of Punjab Government Employees in terms of Punjab Civil Service (Revised Scales of Pay) Rules, 1979, enforced retrospectively from 1.1.1978 scale of pay of Jamadar/Daftri was revised from Rs.75-105/- to Rs.300-430/- plus Rs.20/- special pay and the anomaly committee recommended the restructure of that grade as Rs.325-495/- plus Rs.20/- as special pay and that recommendation was accepted by the Government vide its letter dated 2.6.1981. However, the plaintiff was un-justly denied the revised scale of pay admissible for the equivalent post of Jamadar/Daftri and he had then knocked the door of the court when his representation was finally rejected vide impugned order dated 23.5.1985.
(3.) The claim of the plaintiff was contested on the plea that Finance Department was the competent authority to interpret the rules and to take decision in the matter and the representation of the plaintiff had been rightly rejected and that his revised grade of Rs.75-105/- admissible to Jamadar/Daftri had been wrongly given to the plaintiff and that it was withdrawn later on adding that Finance Department was a necessary party.;