SHIMBHU DAYAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 6.1.200S passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari (hereinafter described as 'the First Appellate Court').

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant joined the government service in the Education Department as S.S. Master with effect from 27.7.1965 on six months basis and then on regular basis with effect from 15.12.1965. He was promoted as Head Master on 29.7.1992 and retired as such on 28.2.1998. All the retrial benefits were released to him, although after five months, except the complete amount of gratuity out of which a sum of Rs. 20,0007- was withheld. According to the appellant, he had submitted all the information which was required of him. It was his further case that his juniors, namely, Ram Narain and Dhan Singh were drawing higher pay than him and his representation for bringing him at par with them did not yield any result. He, therefore, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. It was pleaded therein that aforementioned persons were promoted as Head Masters with effect from 20.5.1994 and 21.5.1994, whereas he was promoted on 29.7.1992, yet, he was getting less pay. It was further pleaded that prior thereto, Ram Narain and Dhan Singh were also granted higher standard pay scale in accordance with the government instructions application to Group-C employees, whereas he was not extended such benefit as he ceased to be a Group-C employee on being promoted to Group-B w.e.f. 29.7.1992. He, therefore, prayed that his pay may be fixed at par with that of his juniors and the arrears along with the balance amount of gratuity may be directed to be paid to him along with interest.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendants-respondents appeared and filed written statement contesting the averments made in the suit. It was pleaded that on account of promotion of the appellant in Group-B, he was in different cadre than that of Ram Narain and Dhan Singh and, therefore, he was not entitled to fixation of his pay at par with them. The withholding of amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was justified on the ground that the records pertaining to the period from 29.7.1992 to 28.2.1998 when the appellant worked as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, were not audited as yet and no objection certificate was not received.