GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant joined the service at Punjab Civil Secretariat as Daftri in the year 1954. He was confirmed on this post in the year 1956. During May 1960, he was promoted as Restorer and confirmed on his post in the year 1966. THE minimum qualification for the post of Restorer was Matriculation. It appears that this qualification was relaxed by the competent authority to promote the appellant and some similarly situated persons as Restorer. Subsequently, some under matriculate Restorers including the appellant were promoted as Clerks on 05.05.1967 by relaxing the educational qualification of matriculation. This arrangement was on experimental basis for a period of 3 months. THE appellant claims to have worked hard and earned good reports. When the appellant and some other persons continued to work as Clerk for a period of one year, they had approached the department for their regularisation as Clerks. Instead of allowing the prayer, the appellant was reverted to the post of Restorer on 12.03.1969. This was without affording any opportunity of hearing. THE appellant, accordingly, represented against the same and he was again promoted on 22.05.1974. Subsequently, the appellant passed matriculation in December 1981 and was regularized as Clerk. THE scale of Clerk was accordingly allowed to the appellant on 17.07.1982. THE appellant, however, prayed for grant of scale from the date he was made to work as Clerk. After serving a notice under Section 80 CPC, he filed the present suit.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent. In a joint written statement filed, the plea of estoppel was taken. Fact that the appellant was initially appointed as Daftri and promoted and confirmed as Restorer was admitted. THE qualification of matriculation was relaxed while promoting the appellant from Daftri to Restorer but it was stated that he could not be promoted as Clerk against the rules and this qualification was never relaxed for the purpose of his promotion. Plea was that the appellant was simply adjusted against the post of Clerk on purely temporary basis for a period of six months, which was also on a clear undertaking given by him (the appellant) that he would not be allowed anything more than the pay and allowances already drawn by him as Restorer. It was accordingly stated that the posting alone would not entitle him for seniority or additional remuneration.

(3.) THE suit was dismissed. THE appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. THE appellant has thus filed the present Regular Second Appeal.