TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....A. NO. 5847 OF 2005 2. The respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed Civil Suit Nos. 665 of 1993 on 20.12.1993 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh praying for a declaration that the Office Order dated 13.3.1980 passed by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab in fixing the pay of the plaintiff in the scale of Rs. 940-1850/- instead of in the scale of Rs. 1200-1850/- is illegal, null, void, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and equity, for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 1850/- as against Rs. 940-1850/-with effect from 1.1.1978 applicable to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and entitled to the payment of all other service benefits including yearly increments, arrears and interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with effect from 1.1.1978 till the date of payment with costs of the suit. At the time of the suit, the plaintiff was working as a Joint Director, Agriculture and was on deputation in The Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited. The plaintiff was selected, according to him, to the post of Deputy Director of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but the plaintiff was not given the same scale and finally on 16.6.1993, when legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendants. 3. As noticed, the claim of plaintiff was that he had been appointed as a Deputy Director even initially and the revised scale of pay of Deputy Directors had been shown in the concerned Order as Rs. 1200-1850/- and consequently, he is entitled to salary at that scale from 1.1.1978 as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission accepted by the State of Punjab and brought into effect. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a Deputy Director. It was pointed out with reference to the Order of appointment relied on by the plaintiff himself, that he was temporarily appointed to the post of Punjab Agricultural Service Class-I officer, on a scale of pay of Rs. 400-1250/- and that scale had been revised with effect from 1.1.1978 only to Rs. 940-1850/- and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to the higher scale of pay as claimed by him. It was further pleaded that the post of Deputy Director in which the plaintiff was intermittently working was only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndant - State of Punjab, to fix the seniority of the plaintiff at Serial Nos. 12 in the Seniority List of Class-I Officers of the Agricultural Department prepared in the year 1980 and granting the plaintiff proforma promotions in accordance with his actual seniority in the Department with retrospective effect after placing him at Serial Nos. 12 in the Seniority List. He also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to release the arrears of his pay and emoluments along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the dates when they became due till their actual recovery in view of his denied promotions to which he was legally entitled to and also to grant him all the service benefits and arrears from the back date to which he was found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and the State of Punjab, the original Defendant was ranked as Defendant No. 1 and four other officers in the Agricultural Department were impleaded as Defendants 2 to 5. One officer Sukhdev Singh, who was shown as senior and promoted earlier and with reference to whom a specific relief was claimed was not impleaded appa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the State has been forced to give the plaintiff a higher scale of pay, the plaintiff could not claim seniority over other officers. All the necessary parties have not been impleaded. The suit was liable to be dismissed. Defendant No. 2 was removed from the array of parties. Two of the other defendants filed a written statement, more or less, along the same lines as that of the State. 11. In all the three suits, the trial court raised issues as to whether the respective plaintiff would be entitled to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/- instead of at Rs. 940- 1850/- and whether the suits were barred by limitation. In the suits giving rise to C.A. Nos. 5847 of 2005 and C.A. Nos. 5454 of 2005, the trial court held that in view of the letter sanctioning the revised pay scale indicating the scale of pay of Deputy Directors as Rs. 1200-1850/-, the endorsement of the Director of Agriculture that the revised scale of pay of Rs. 940-1850/- alone was payable was wrong. The court shut its eyes to the contention that the plaintiffs were only recruited as Punjab Agricultural Service Class-I officers on a scale of pay of Rs. 400-1250/- and the revised scale for that pay was only Rs. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the trial court without a proper and independent application of mind and confirmed the decrees. It noticed that the seniority list was issued in the year 1980 and in the year 1984, but stated that at that stage it was not established that the post of Deputy Director enjoys higher rank and status as compared to the other officers and since a finding in that regard was recorded only on 3.10.1993 in the prior suit, the present suits could be held to be within time. Thus the appeals were dismissed. 13. The State filed Second Appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, we are constrained to point out, without a proper application of mind, simply dismissed the Second Appeals, without even considering or attempting to answer properly the issues that arose for decision in the case. It appears to us that in matters relating to service, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be considered to be so wide that it would enable it to sit in appeal over disciplinary proceedings, over the quantum of punishment imposed, over the entries in confidential records, and so on, in respect of which reliefs are seen to be freely granted by the courts in the States of Punjab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that behalf was made by the Director of Agricultural Services and the plaintiffs were denied revised pay at Rs. 1200-1850/- and were paid only at Rs. 940-1850/-. It was not the mere making of an order, but an action that had immediate impact on the right of the plaintiffs to recover a higher salary as per their claim. The cause of action thus clearly arose for the first time. Thus the suit for declaration was clearly barred by limitation going by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The fact that some other officer had been given a decree for the enhanced revised scale, does not furnish the plaintiffs in the first two suits with a fresh cause of action. It is well settled that the time does not stop to run once it has started to run. Therefore, the reliance placed on the decree in Civil Suit Nos. 461 of 1991 had absolutely no relevance on this question. Strictly speaking, Civil Suit Nos. 461 of 1991 also ought not to have been decreed since that suit was clearly barred by limitation, since the order sought to be challenged in that suit of 1991 was also the order dated 13.3.1980. But in view of the decree passed therein, it is not for us now to go into the correctness or otherwise of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if it is found to be void, has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and void within three years of the order. It is one thing to say that the plaintiffs might make a claim that they must also be paid in future at the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/- in view of the decision rendered in favour of another officer of the same department. But that does not enable them to revive a claim for the relief of declaration which had become long ago barred. A cause of action once barred does not get revived in such a case. Moreover, the decree that was granted in that case was only to the effect that the plaintiff therein was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/- with effect from 1.1.1978, which was attached to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture instead of at Rs. 940-1850/-. As we have indicated that was not a suit in which Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure was invoked and there was no declaration granted that the endorsement or order dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void, the prayer for which is made in the first two suits. It may be noticed that Suit No. 461 of 1991 was concerned more with the effect of variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director of Agriculture, obviously considering the nature of the service in the Agricultural Department, rightly noting there was no cadre post of Deputy Director in the department and some Agricultural Officers, Class-I were posted as Deputy Directors and some others as Chief Agricultural Officers, etc. only for administrative reasons and the posts were interchangeable and the concerned officer remained an officer of Class-I, endorsed that the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/- does not apply to those working as Deputy Directors in the Agricultural Department. We find that the correct position was adopted by the Director of Agriculture and the order or endorsement made by him on 13.3.1980 was clearly correct and legal and in the face of the orders of appointment Exhibit P-1 produced by the plaintiffs, they cannot be heard to say that they were appointed to a post other than that of a Class-I officer in the Punjab Agricultural Service. The courts below have not considered the rules and the position emerging therefrom and the position obtaining in the service while considering this question and thereby they have gone wrong in their conclusion. 18. It is argued that since in Civil Sui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the seniority list was felt by the plaintiff on the issue of that list and when others were placed above him. The cause of action therefore arose in 1980 and in 1984. 21. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one in a service can sleep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years and then come to court seeking a relief which will upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face of it, a declaratory relief that will have the effect of altering a twelve year old and a nine year old seniority list could not have been granted by the courts below. 22. Then the only question is whether in view of the earlier decree in Civil Suit Nos. 461 of 1991 obtained by the present plaintiff, he would be placed in a better position regarding his entitlement to have the seniority list upset at this distance of time. We have already indicated the scope of the decree granted in the earlier suit. It merely found that the disciplinary actions initiated against the plaintiff did not affect his claim to be given the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/- and that he was ....