- (1.) Present appeal, at the hands of defendant, is directed against the judgment of reversal, whereby the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1989 passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffrespondent for declaration, was set aside by the learned District Judge and suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate Court in paras 2 and 3, are that on 1.5.85 plaintiff-respondent Ram Jiwan filed a suit for declaration against defendant-appellant Panchayat Samiti with the allegations that the plaintiff was an erstwhile Panchayat Secretary of the defendant and since 1979 he was the Gram Sachiv under the State Govt. It was alleged that the defendant was a statutory body under whom the plaintiff had worked as Panchayat Secretary for about 24 years. It was alleged that for no fault of his, the plaintiff was placed under suspension on 7.5.1965 but was reinstated vide resolution dated 2.8.1968. It was further alleged that immediately after his reinstatement, the plaintiff was removed from service vide resolution dated 27.9.68 which was conveyed to the plaintiff on 8.10.1968 by the Executive Officer. It was further alleged that the said illegal orders dated 27.9.68 conveyed on 8.10.1968 were struck down by Sub Judge IInd Class, Rohtak. on 17.1.1975 in the Civil Suit titled as 'Ram Jiwan Vs. Panchayat Samiti' filed by the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1975 became final and the plaintiff continued to be the employee of the defendant, as the order of removal had been rendered ineffective and inoperative due to the civil court decree. It was further alleged that as a result of the said decree, the plaintiff became entitled to all the dues and benefits throughout. It was further alleged that to his misfortune, the plaintiff was confronted with a hardship in as much as the dues payable to the plaintiff were kept postponed or delayed for no ostensible reason. It was further alleged that the defendant had failed to convey the reasons to the plaintiff for the denial of his entitlement for the dues. It was further alleged that the defendant released some payment to the plaintiff for the period from 2.6.1972 to 2.6.1975 and the said payment was only partial in respect of the said period as the plaintiff was paid at the minimum rate on or about 20.1.1977. It was alleged that on 18.3.1976, the defendant vide its resolution agreed to make the payment of all his dues on production of his date of birth. It was alleged that the plaintiff complied with the same and the defendant found him eligible w.e.f. 1.4.1964 onwards at the various rates of pay scales. It was alleged that the defendant, however, did not make the details of the reasons for not allowing the said amount, to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that according to the plaintiff, he had not been paid his dues from 1.9.1965 to 2.6.1972 and the plaintiff had not been fixed in the revised scales and had not been granted normal increments. It was alleged that on account of the illegal and unjust denial of the said dues to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had suffered a running loss. It was alleged that the Govt. was liable to pay to the plaintiff all the benefits w.e.f. 28.5.1979 by protecting the existing salary of the plaintiff due to him. It was alleged that the defendant had failed to fix the pay of the plaintiff for the period of his service upto 28.5.1979 which had resulted in stalemate to the prejudice and determent of the plaintiff. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to the release, fixation and payment of his emoluments in the time scale of 116.200 w.e.f. 1.2.1969 and in the time scale of Rs.400-600 from 1.4.1979 and prior to 1.2.1969 in the scale which was then prevalent. It was further prayed that directions may also be issued to the defendant to pay the arrears of pay to the plaintiff which were found due to him.
(3.) The said suit was contested by the defendant-Panchayat Samiti who filed the written-statement, controverting the allegations contained in the plaint and taking up various preliminary objections, including the plea that the suit was barred by the principle of resjudicate; the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit; the suit was barred by time and the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was an erstwhile Panchayat Secretary under the defendant. It was further alleged that since 13.6.1973, the powers of the defendant to employ its servants were withdrawn by the Govt. of Haryana vide Act No.22 of 1973. It was admitted that since 28.5.1979 the plaintiff was an employee of the State of Haryana and now w.e.f. 31.5.1985 the plaintiff stood retired from service. It was alleged that the plaintiff remained an employee of the defendant Panchayat Samiti only from 1.4.1964 to 7.11.1968. It was alleged that the plaintiff was placed under suspension on 7.8.1965 and was reinstated on 2.8.1968. It was admitted that the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1975, passed by the Civil Court, had become final as no one had filed any appeal against the same. It was also admitted that the resolution dated 27.9.1968 and the subsequent order dated 8.10.1968 passed by the Panchayat Samiti were struck down by the civil court. It was alleged that after the passing of the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1975, the plaintiff had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, and also to the defendant and as per the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and communicated vide memo dated 2.6.1975, the plaintiff was held entitled to the salary etc. only for the period of three years immediately prior to his reinstatement i.e. for a period of three years before 3.6.1975. It was alleged that the said arrears were actually paid to him and after the receipt of the said arrears the plaintiff took no steps whatsoever for claiming the remaining amount. It was alleged that when the plaintiff moved for the grant of arrears, the same were duly paid to him. It was further alleged that for the period from 8.11.1968 to 3.6.1972, there were no orders with regard to payment of dues etc. and as such no payment was made. It was alleged that the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and as per his orders, the plaintiff was held entitled for arrears etc. only for a period of three years which were paid to him. It was alleged that the payment for the period from 4.6.1972 to 2.6.1975 was paid to him on 19.1.1977 and since the dispute regarding treatment of the period from 8.11.1968 till 1975 remained unresolved, the payment was made to the plaintiff at the minimum rate. It was resolved to make the payment only for three years in compliance with the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, dated 5.2.1976. It was further alleged that the service record of the plaintiff was incomplete and after due deliberations, the date of birth of the plaintiff was taken at 2.5.1927. It was further alleged that due to the lack of clear cut instructions/orders with regard to the period from 1968 to 1975, the matter remained unresolved. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had received the arrears of salary due upto 7.11.1968 and also for the subsequent period of three years from 2.6.1972 to 2.6.1975, in view of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. It was alleged that the plaintiff slept over his right for a long period and the payment for three years was made to the plaintiff in view of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and the plaintiff never challenged the said orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, before any authority. It was further alleged that as the dispute regarding the period from 1968 to 1975 remained unresolved, no further steps were possible and the plaintiff slept over his right. It was admitted that upto his retirement, he had drawn salary in the minimum pay scale. It was further alleged that the plaintiff took no steps whatsoever either to execute the civil court decree or get his pay fixed. However, it was admitted that vide resolution dated 4.9.1984, the Panchayat Samiti had resolved to treat the plaintiff from 7.8.1965 to 7.11.1968 and from 4.6.1972 to 2.6.1975 as on duty. It was also alleged that it was further resolved to treat the plaintiff from 8.11.1968 to 3.6.1972 as on leave without pay. It was further alleged that this was the only possible way to resolve the dispute. It was further alleged that the dispute could not be resolved, as in the mean time the plaintiff had filed the suit. It was accordingly prayed that the suit be dismissed.;