RAMESH KUMAR Vs. M D UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment I will dispose of two S.A.O. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1999, titled Ramesh Kumar v. M.D. University, Rohtak, as both these appeals have arisen from the order dated 9.4.1999, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which allowed the appeals of the parties to the suit and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.3.1998, passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court at the stage when it was before it. Directions were also given to the Additional District Judge, Rohtak to the trial Court to conclude the trial and decide the suit on merits.

(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal filed suit for declaration against the defendant Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak and sought a declaration to the effect that the action on the part of the defendant including the impugned letter dated 10.4.1991 vide which the plaintiff was refused his due grades with effect from the date mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint; and the refusal on the part of the defendant to upgrade the post of the plaintiff from the Assistant Director, Physical Education to Deputy Director, Physical Education, was arbitrary, prejudicial, against equity, mala fide, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. The plaintiff further sought a declaration that he is entitled to be awarded scale of Rs. 550/990 w.e.f. 11.8.1980; Rs. 700/1600 w.e.f. this date also; Rs. 2000/4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and grade of Rs. 3000/5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987 and besides that he is also entitled to arrears of interest at the rate of 18 per cent and other costs of the litigation etc.

(3.) It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was a regular hand employee of the defendant-University. Earlier he was appointed as Assistant Director, Physical Education-cum-Security Officer w.e.f. 14.7.1979 on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 225-15-360/20-500. Later this grade was revised and the plaintiff was allowed the grade of Rs. 525/1050 from the date of this appointment i.e. with effect from 14.7.79. At the time of his appointment, the plaintiff acquired all the qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Director, Physical Education. As per Notification dated 21.2.1985, he was entitled to be designated as Director of Physical Education instead of Assistant Director of Physical Education. The Executive Council of the defendant vide resolution No. 55, dated 11.8.1980, recommended the upgrading of the post of Assistant Director of Physical Education in the pay scale of Rs. 225-15-360/20-500 to that of Director, Physical Education in the pay scale of Rs. 550-25-750/30-900. The Council further revised the grade of Rs. 550/900 to that of Rs. 700/1600 vide its resolution No. 35 dated 8.10.1984 where the plaintiff as per memo dated 21.2.1985, was entitled to this grade w.e.f. 1.4.1980 but the defendant did not award this revised grade to the plaintiff who had been working in the old grade of Rs. 525/1050. With the revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the old grade of the plaintiff was revised to that of Rs. 1,400/2,600, whereas, the plaintiff was entitled to the grade from 700/1600 to 2200/4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with the completion of eight years service, the plaintiff is entitled to the grade of Rs. 3000/5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987. The plaintiff has given a Chart how he was allegedly entitled to different grades from 14.7.1979 to 14.7.1987 in para No. 3 of the plaint. His grouse is that though he is entitled to these grades but he has not been awarded by the University and, therefore, declaration should be given to him.