(1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sangrur, whereby part relief has been granted to the respondent-plaintiff (Krishna Jain). Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Krishana Jain filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction claiming that direction may be issued to the respondent-State and others to treat her as Headmistress of Industrial Training Schools (General Cadre) and allow her pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as applicable to the Headmistress of Government Industrial Training School for Girls in the State of Punjab and also claimed other service benefits attached to the said cadre and further for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-State from transferring/shifting her from Government Industrial Training School for Girls, Sunam treating her as Headmistress of the Government Industrial Centre for Women, Muktsar. The defendants-State appeared in the case and had admitted in the written statement that plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a Craft Instructress through the Subordinate Services Selection Board w.e.f. 22.11.1965 and it is submitted that she was appointed under the Economic Uplift Scheme at Government Insutrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar. She was confirmed as Craft Instructress w.e.f. 14.04.1976 and again as Headmistress in the Government Industrial Training Centre Cadre w.e.f. 20.11.1977. It is admitted that initial grade of the Headmistresses of Government Industrial Training Schools for Girls was Rs. 140-200 and that of Government Industrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar was Rs. 250-350. Further, the grades of these cadres were revised to Rs. 300-500. It is also admitted that the basic qualifications and nature of duties are the same. The plaintiff-respondent was transferred to Government Industrial Training Schools for girls cadre at her own request and on administrative grounds without changing her cadre. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent was transferred vide order dated 27.05.1985 from Government Industrial Training School for Girls, Sunam to Industrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar in her own cadre and in public interest.
(2.) The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record recorded a finding that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent to be integrated in the cadre of Headmistress of Government Industrial Training Schools for girls, is declined. However, she was granted decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants-State to allow her the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as Headmistress of Government Industrial Training Centre, Muktsar w.e.f. 01.01.1978. Against the said judgment, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent before the learned lower appellate Court, which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was modified and it was held that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to be integrated in Cadre of Headmistress of Govt. Industrial Training School for Girls and was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as Headmistress Govt. Industrial Training Centre, Muktsar w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Against the said judgment and decree, the instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the State.
(3.) When the appeal was admitted, no substantial questions of law were framed nor are mentioned in the grounds of appeal filed by the State. However, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel prays that the substantial question of law with regard to non-reading of evidence and mis-reading of evidence on record arises. As such, the following substantial question of law is framed: