K K MASIH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff are as under:-

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant herein filed a suit for declaration that he was appointed by erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on regular post of driver, he was promoted to Work-Charged Motor Mechanic and he retired from the post of Artizen Grade-I on 28.2.93, he was entitled for higher pay scale, but he was not paid higher pay scale, he served notice, which was not replied by the defendants, therefore, he is entitled for declaration that he is eligible for second promotion with effect from 23.2.1972 and also entitled for higher pay scale. He filed a suit on 19.6.95, which was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.4.2001, dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1983") and also barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Questioning legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff, in which substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court, which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.