HARI RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Ram, appellant-plaintiff, filed this suit making a grievance that he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar on the due date i.e. 01.11.1976. The suit was instituted on 09.04.1984. In the meanwhile, the appellant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.11.1981 This order was passed on 14.12.1982.

(2.) As per the averment in the plaint, the appellant was appointed as Turner Instructor in the scale of Rs. 120-8-200 w.e.f. 01.11.1965. He was posted in the Industrial Training Institute, Kaithal. The pay scale was revised w.e.f. 01.02.1969 to Rs. 160-10200-EB-10-300. This scale was subsequently revised to Rs. 160-400 (160-10-280-EB-15-400), amended yet again to the scale of Rs. 22516-360-EB-20-500. The appellant-plaintiff accordingly would plead that his pay scale should have been fixed in the revised pay scale from the date the scale came into force and as such would plead that w.e.f. 01.04.1979 his pay should have been fixed in the scale of Rs. 525-1050. He had reached the stage of crossing the efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 but the same was not allowed till 01.11.1980 on the ground that his service record had not been found upto the mark for the purpose of allowing him to cross the efficiency bar. This order allowing the appellant to cross efficiency bar was endorsed on 14.12.1982 by the Director, Industrial Training, Haryana. It was viewed that the appellant was not entitled to cross the efficiency bar due to unsatisfactory record of service. The appellant had accordingly challenged this order to be illegal, void, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. Plea was that no one should be allowed to suffer on account of the inaction of the the respondents and since the case of the appellant was not considered for crossing the efficiency bar ever since from due date i.e. 01.11.1976 till the case was considered and appellant granted the benefit, he has suffered a serious prejudice.

(3.) On being put to notice, the respondents filed a written statement and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit is barred by time and was also not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On merit, it was conceded that the appellant was due for crossing the efficiency bar on 01.11.1976, it is then stated that his record of service was not found up to the mark and accordingly, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.11.1976, 01.11.1977, 01.11.1981, 1.11.1979 and 01.11.1980. This was again reviewed on 01.11.1981 and he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from the said date on the basis of service record and his pay was raised from Rs. 360/- to Rs. 480/-. All other contentions as raised in the plaint were denied being wrong. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the following issues: