HARYANA STATE Vs. KARAM CHAND (NOW DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 14/8/1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Hisar, whereby suit for declaration filed by the respondent(s)/plaintiff was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dtd. 6/5/1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby appeal filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dtd. 14/8/1992, has been dismissed.

(2.) For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff Karam Chand filed suit for declaration that the impugned orders of defendant No.2 dtd. 18/5/1975, 18/6/1975, 8/7/1975, 9/1/1976, 19/2/1976 and 24/7/1980, whereby the plaintiff was stopped at the first efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.130.00 in the pay scale of Rs.110.004-130/5-160/5-225 for one year each time, are wrong, illegal, mala fide, against the service Rules and instructions of the State Government and are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to cross the efficiency bar on due date i.e. 22/10/1970. It was pleaded that plaintiff joined the service of defendant no. 2 in the pay scale of Rs.110.004-130/5-160/5-225 and he was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 22/10/1970. However, the case was kept pending till 18/5/1975, when defendant no.2 passed an order vide which the plaintiff was stopped at the efficiency bar w.e.f. 22/10/1970. Similarly vide orders dtd. 18/6/1975, 8/7/1975, 9/1/1976 and 19/2/1976 the plaintiff was stopped at the efficiency bar for one year due on 22/10/1970, 22/10/1971, 22/10/72, 22/10/1973 and 22/10/1974. Later, by order dtd. 24/7/1980 the plaintiff was stopped at the efficiency bar due on 22/10/1973, 22/10/1976, 22/10/1977. 22/10/1978 and 22/10/1979 and ultimately by order of defendant no.2 dtd. 19/10/1984, issued with endorsement No.5235-37/SK, BC dtd. 19/10/1988 the plaintiff was allowed to cross the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.130.00 per month in the pay scale of Rs.110.004-130/5-160/5-225, raising his pay to Rs.160.00 per month w.e.f. that date. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Hissar Division against the order dtd. 18/5/1975 but the same was dismissed on technical ground that since in the meantime by virtue of Rule 2 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Haryana Second Amendment Rules, 1974 issued with the Haryana Government notification No.GSR-130/-constitution/Article. 187, 309 and 318/Amd. (2)74 dtd. 31/10/1974 stoppage at efficiency bar under the provisions of rule 4.8. of the Punjab Civil Services Rules volume -1 part-1 or analogous provisions of any other rules on the ground of unfitness to cross the bar, did not amount to the punishment and therefore, the Commissioner observed that the order was not appealable and dismissed the appeal on this ground. Defendant no.2 vide two subsequent orders dtd. 9/1/1976 and 19/2/1976 stopped the plaintiff again at bar due on 22/10/1973 and 22/10/1974. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted memorial to the Govt. of Haryana through proper channel under the instructions issued with erstwhile Punjab Govt. Notification No. 9369-G-51/1-681 dtd. 12/2/1952 against the orders of defendant No.2 dtd. 18/5/1975, 9/1/1976 and 19/2/1976 but the same were rejected and intimation was sent to the plaintiff by defendant no.2 vide his memo No. 608/SK, BC dtd. 25/1/1985 through Tehsildar Fatehabad. According to the plaintiff, the impugned orders were passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard and the same are illegal, void, mala fide against the service rules and therefore, these are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has challenged all these orders in one suit and actually he should have filed separate suits; that the suit is time barred; that the plaintiff has no cause of action; that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit; that the suit is not properly valued. On merits it was pleaded that the plaintiff was to cross first efficiency bar in the pay scale of Rs.110.004-130/5-160/5-225 w.e.f. 22/10/1970 raising his pay to Rs.135.00 but by the orders of defendant No.2 dtd. 18/5/1975, 18/6/1975, 8/7/1975, 9/1/1976 and 19/2/1976 the plaintiff was stopped at the efficiency bar. Later by order dtd. 24/7/1980 he was stopped at the efficiency bar due on 22/10/1975, 22/10/1976, 22/10/1977, 22/10/1978 and 22/10/1979 and ultimately order of defendant No.2 dtd. 19/10/1984, issued with endorsement No.5235- 37/SK.BC dtd. 29/10/1984 the plaintiff was allowed to cross efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.130.00per month w.e.f. 1/10/1980, raising his pay to Rs.160.00 per month w.e.f. that date. It was admitted that the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Hissar Division but the same was rejected vide order dtd. 27/12/1975. However, the plaintiff did not file any departmental appeal against the orders dtd. 9/1/1976 and 19/2/1976 passed by the Collector, Hissar. The plaintiff is governed by the Punjab Revenue Class-II Service Rule, 1966 and now by the Haryana Revenue Patwaris (Group-C) Services Rules, 1981. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was rightly withheld at the stage of his crossing bar as he was not competent to fulfil his duties and, therefore, the defendant prayed that the suit may be dismissed.