(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from the decision of the High Court setting aside the appointment of the appellant as a chick sexer in the Department of Animal Husbandry of the Government of Punjab.
(2.) THE appellant's case is that he was appointed as a Bird Attendant/Hatchery Man in the Department on 24/11/1981. In 1983, the appellant successfully underwent training as a chick sexer with the Central Hatchery, Chengannur, Kerala. After completing his training, he discharged the duties of a chick sexer and was appointed as chick sexer at various places within the State. For example, one order dated 3-7-86 from the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Poultry Development to the Assistant Director states :-
(3.) THE appellant filed a suit in 1989 against the State Government Authorities claiming to be paid the same scale of pay as chick sexers. THE suit was dismissed in 1993. THE appellant preferred an appeal. THE only relief asked for by the appellant before the Appellate Court was that the Department might be directed to consider i) whether the appellant had been working as a chick sexer; ii) and was entitled to pay and other benefits. THE State Authorities had no objection to such an order being passed. THE order of the Additional District Judge accordingly was :-