- (1.) These two Regular Second Appeals No. 1646 of 1984 and 1866 of 1984 have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad on 4.2.1984 vide which he disposed of two Civil Appeals No. 190 of 1982, titled as Sultan Singh v. Ram Gopal and another and Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1982, titled as Ram Gopal v. Municipal Committee, Paiwal and another, whereby the appeal filed by Sultan Singh was accepted and the order of appointment of the appellant Sultan Singh as Octroi Superintendent was held to be legal and thus the suit of the plaintiff was partly upheld, whereas the remaining relief of recovery of Rs. 996/- claimed by the plaintiff was upheld. However, an appeal filed by Ram Gopal appellant was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff Ram Gopal had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is senior to defendant No. 2, Sultan Singh and the order of promotion of defendant No. 2 dated 11.7.1989 whereby he was promoted as Octroi Superintendent is illegal, void ab initio and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the order of punishment dated 11.10.1974 is illegal, unlawful and inoperative and for the recovery of Rs. 2500/- as arrears of pay was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as Octroi Moharrir on 21.7.1963 and during this period he was promoted as Octroi Inspector and Octroi Superintendent etc. The plaintiff was promoted as Octroi Inspector on 26.10.1976 and worked upto 16.10.1977. He was reverted thereafter to the post of Octroi Moharrir. The plaintiff was again promoted as Octroi Inspector on 12.9.1978 but he continued to draw the salary of the Octroi Moharrir in the pay scale of Rs. 110/-. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Sultan Singh were promoted as Octroi Inspector on 12.9.1978. The post of Octroi Inspector carries the pay scale of Rs. 150/- whereas the plaintiff was paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 110/- for the period from 26.10.1976 to 16.10.1977 when he worked as Octroi Inspector. The post of Octroi Inspector and Vehicle Inspector in the Municipal Committee are interchangeable and it carried the pay scale of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff thus prayed that he was paid less salary and was deprived of other allowances, increments etc. Therefore, he claimed that he is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 2500/-. It is further the case of the plaintiff that while working as Octroi Moharrir, he was punished vide order dated 11.10.1974 vide which his 11 years service was forfeited. On appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order of forfeiture of service the order was modified and the plaintiff was awarded the forfeiture of four years service vide order dated 1.1.1975. According to the plaintiff, the order of forfeiture of past service of the plaintiff-appellant is illegal as punishment of forfeiture of service is foreign to the Punjab Civil Service Appeal and Punishment Rules, 1952. The order of punishment, however, was not implemented by the Municipal Committee so the plaintiff did not initiate any action to get the order of punishment set aside either by filing of a civil suit or before the competent authority. The plaintiff was, however, promoted along with defendant No. 2 as Octroi Inspector despite of the punishment continuing to exist in his record. After promotion to the post of Octroi Inspector the order of punishment ceases to operate. In view of the order dated 12.9.1978 the plaintiff-appellant joined as Octroi Inspector on 14.9.1978 whereas the defendant No. 2 joined on 15.9.1978.;