S S BARGAVA Vs. ALLAHABAD POLYTECHNIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's second appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs sued for declaration that the fixation of the grade and scale of pay and dearness allowance made by the defendants in pursuance of G. O. No. 2113 ED-XVIII-D dated 8-13-1967 whereby the emoluments of the plaintiffs were sought to be reduced, was null and void and ineffective and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the grade and scale of pay and to the dearness allowance in accordance with G. O. No. G-a263/x-l431965 dated 28-2-1966.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: The plaintiffs are in the employment of the Allahabad Polytechinic as lecturers, instructors, office assistants and class IV assistant, etc. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act named as Institute of Engineering Technology started a technical school under the name and style of "civil Engineering School" in or about year 1955. That institution continued to function and impaned technic education suitable for qualifying as overseers. Subsequently, the institutions imparting technical education were reorganised by the Government and the said institution was re-camed as "allahabad Polytechnic". The old management ceased with effect from 1st July, 1962 and a new management came into existence. The institution became an aided institution so far as the Government was concerned The Government of U. P. appointed a committee for rationalization of pay of the Government servants and the said Committee submitted its report to the Government with its recommendations for rationalization of pay of the employees in various departments of the Government of U. P. The recommendations of Pay Rationalization Committee were duly accepted by G. O. No. G-a/261/x143-1965 dated 28-2-1966, and the Government gave effect to the recommendation of the Committee for the employees of the Polytechnic and according to the said G. O. the new grades of pay were given effect to from 1st January, 1966. Certain G. Os. were subsequently issued by the Government and it is the cumulative effect of (he paid G. Os. read with the first G. O. No. G-a/263/x-143-1965 dated 28-2-1966 which is the central point of controversy in this second appeal. It seems that the employees of the Allahabad Polytechnic and other similar institutions were allowed the fixation of pay in accordance with G. O. No. G-I/263/x-I43-1965 dated 28-2-1966 but the Principal was asked to take an undertaking from each of the employees that if there was any excess payment, then the same would be reimbursed to the Government in case it was subsequently found that the fixation of pay was not correctly done. In other words, it was a provisional fixation of pay scales and payments made on the basis of such revised scales were liable to an adjustment in case subsequently it was held that the revision of pay scales was not correctly made. Subsequently, the defendants began to contend that the fixation on the basis of G. O. No. G-1/263/x-143-1965 dated 28-2-1966 was not correct in the case of the plaintiffs and that the subsequent G. Os. clarified the position; so the plaintiffs were bound to reimburse the defendants for the excess payment which had been made to them. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the suit which has given rise to the present appeal and claimed the reliefs as stated above. The trial Court held that the pay scales were correctly fixed in the case of the plaintiffs and the subsequent G. Os. issued by the Government did not effect the plaintiffs and, therefore, there was no question of any reimbursement being made by the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, the suit was decreed by the trial Court. In the appeal which was taken out by the defendants before the lower appellate Court, the latter differed from the trial court's interpretation of the relevant G. Os. and reversed the trial Court's decree. The lower appellate Court held that as the plaintiffs were not getting any dearness allowance actually on 31st March, 1961, therefore, their pay fixation had to be done without including any dearness allowance and inasmuch as their pay scales had been fixed after including them in the assumed dearness allowance to which they would have been entitled if they were in service on 31st March, 1961, the said fixation was incorrectly done and hence the plaintiffs were liable to make reimbursement as agreed to by them when the tentative fixation of their grades and scales had been made by the Principal of the Institution. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in the suit and the same was dismissed. The plaintiffs have felt aggrieved and have filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. As I have stated above, the only controversy involved in the appeal as regarding the correct interpretation of certain G. Os. which were issued from time to time. The relevant G. Os. are as follows: l. G. O. No. G-1-263/x-143-1965 dated 28-2-1966. 2. G. O. No. 1029/ed/xviii-D dated 12-7-1966. 3. G. O. No. 301/ed/xviii-D dated 24-4-1967. 4. G. O No. 2113/ed/xviii-D dated 8-11-1967. 5. G. O. No. 2426/edxviii-D 398 ED/61 dated 2-7-1968. It may be seen that the first G. O. No.-1g-263/x-143-1965 dated 282-1966 is a general G. O. addressed to all the Heads of the Department and Principal Heads of U. P. The G. O. says: That the initial pay of a Government servant in the new scales of pay shall be fixed with reference to his present emoluments. Then it lays down how the present emoluments shall be fixed. In Clause (6) of paragraph 2 of the said G. O. it is laid down that ''dearness allowance (including dearness pay) and personal pay in lieu of cost of living allowance which would be admissible at the rates in force on March 31, 1961 will be taken into account in arriving at the present emoluments of the Government servants concerned. " The second G. O. dated 12-7-1966 lays down "that the Governor has been pleased to order that with effect from January 1, 1966, the staff of the aided polytechnics may be allowed the same pay scales and rates of D. A. as have been recommended by the Pay Rationalisation Committee and accepted by Government for corresponding posts in Government Polytechnics.

(3.) IT will thus be seen that whereas the first G. O. was applicable to the staff of the Government Polytechnic, the second G. O. extended the benefit of the same to the staff of the aided Polytechnic. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case the Allahabad Polytechnic is an aided Polytechnic. In view of the combined effect of the said two G. Os. the plaintiffs became entitled to the new scales recommended by the Pay Rationalisation Committee and accepted by the Government with regard to the staff of the Government Polytechnic and they were similarly entitled to the fixation of their present emoluments on the basis of the conditions laid down in the first G. O. dated 28-2-1966, i. e. after taking into account the dearness allowance which would be admissible at the rates in force on March 31, 1961. However, it seems that subsequently some controversy arose and the Government issued certain further G. Os. The third G. O. which was issued by the Government is dated 24th April, 1967. It lays down that the G. O. dated July 12, 1966 would stand modified to the extent as laid down in the said G. O. dated 24th April, 1967. Thereafter the fourth G. O. was issued on November 8, 1967 and that it was laid down in that G. O. that