BALDEV SINGH Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the applicants-respondents for placing on record relevant documents (Annexures R-11 to R-15). In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Documents (Annexures R-11 to R-15) are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon (Sewadar) at Guru Nanak Dev University Regional Campus, Gurdaspur. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Restorer (Library) in the year 1997 and thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Professional Assistant vide order dated 16. 05.2006 (Annexure P-1). Order dtd. 16/5/2006 (Annexure P-1), vide which the petitioner was promoted/appointed on the post of Professional Assistant was cancelled vide order dtd. 24/8/2006 (Annexure R-2). Aggrieved against the abovesaid order dated 24. 08.2006 (Annexure R-2), the petitioner filed a suit before the trial Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22. 10.2008 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/10/2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dtd. 12/5/2009 (Annexure P-5). Aggrieved against the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, the petitioner filed the regular second appeal bearing RSA No.3171 of 2009 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 9/9/2009 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted on the post of Professional Assistant (Library) on 28/3/2013. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming salary for the period from 24/8/2006 to 28/3/2013 on the ground that although the order of appointment on the post of Professional Assistant was cancelled vide order dtd. 24/8/2006 (Annexure R-2), however, in terms of order dtd. 20/9/2006 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was granted permission to work on the post of Professional Assistant. As the petitioner has worked on the post of Professional Assistant, as such, the petitioner is entitled for grant of salary for the abovesaid period i.e. from 24/8/2006 to 28/3/2013.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that although order dtd. 20/9/2006 (Annexure P-7) was issued, whereby the petitioner could continue to work in the Department on the post of Professional Assistant (Library) till the post of Professional Assistant (Library) was lying vacant, however, the petitioner did not perform the duty of the said post of Professional Assistant. It is a specific case of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was working on the post of Restorer (Library), as such, he was granted salary of the post of Restorer (Library) as per his entitlement, taking into consideration his substantive post i.e. Restorer (Library). No document has been brought to the notice of the Court that petitioner was performing the duty of Professional Assistant.