MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAMALKHA Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Amit Paul, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent prays that he be allowed to withdraw the cross-objections filed by him.

(2.) Undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Shree Bhagwan was appointed as Octroi Moharrir with the Municipal Committee, Samalakha in the year 1983. The superior post of Octroi Inspector fell vacant in the year 1989. Plaintiff Shree Bhagwan was posted to work as Octroi Inspector by the Municipal Committee, Samalkha temporarily, vide resolution No. 324 dated 26.9.1989. On the request made by Shree Bhagwan plaintiff, the Municipal Committee headed by its Administrator sent his case for promotion as Octroi Inspector to the Deputy Commissioner vide resolution No. 17 dated 16.9.1991 (Mark 'B'). The Deputy Commissioner sent the case of Shree Bhagwan back to the Municipal Committee, Samalkha vide letter (Ex. D3) with the remarks that first the case regarding regularization of ad hoc employees of the Committee be submitted and after that combined seniority list of the employees of the Municipal Committee, Panipat, as well as the Municipal Committee, Samalkha, be prepared. Only then the case be submitted for promotion in order of seniority. Until the combined seniority list is prepared, the employees working on the posts would continue to work there. Consequently, the plaintiff continued to work on the post of Octroi Inspector. In the combined seniority list his name fell at Serial No. 67. He filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant Municipal Committee, Samalkha, directing it not to revert him to the post of Octroi Muharrir, and also for directing the defendants to pay him the salary meant for the post of Octroi Inspector and accordingly arrears of salary be paid to him with effect from the date he continued to work as Octroi Inspector. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that he was neither entitled for the grant of mandatory injunction against reversion from the post of Octroi Inspector nor he was entitled for the grant of the salary corresponding to the promoted post and the consequential arrears of pay as he was appointed as such only as a stop-gap arrangement. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.2002 partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that he was entitled to the grant same salary and allowances as were admissible to regular employees holding similar posts. In the present appeal the Municipal Committee, Samalkha, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2002 passed by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) The primary contention raised by Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, is that the plaintiff-respondent was only appointed to work on the post of Octroi Inspector by the Municipal Committee as a sop- gap arrangement and no appointment letter was ever issued to him. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Municipal Committee, Samalkha, was not the competent authority to promoter him as Octroi Inspector. Rather the competent authority is the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, it has been contended that the Additional District Judge, Panipat, has erred in directing the Municipal Committee to grant him the salary meant for the post of Octroi inspector.