Ajmer Singh vs Union of India and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Ajmer Singh has assailed order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the trial court thereby directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee. Plaintiff/petitioner has filed suit against respondents/defendants. However, defendants No. 1 and 2 already stand struck off from the array of parties. Plaintiff alleged in his suit vide plaint (Annexure P-1) that he has been illegally retired by defendants No. 3 and 4(Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited/IFFCO and its General Manager) prior to attaining the age of 60 years. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that he be treated to have continued in service of defendants No. 3 and 4 upto the age of 60 years i.e. upto 31.05.2008. The plaintiff has also claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay all arrears of pay and other financial benefits for the period from 01.09.2006 till 31.05.2008.

Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed application (Annexure P-3) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of financial benefits claimed by him, but has not paid the same.

Plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-4) resisted the aforesaid application and pleaded that he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee because he is seeking declaration and mandatory injunction only.

Learned trial court vide impugned order has directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of financial benefits being claimed by him. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 relying on unreported judgment of this Court dated 02.09.1996 in CWP No. 8014 of 1996 titled as Ram Sanehi vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. and others followed by this Court in unreported judgment dated 04.09.2001 in CWP No. 14569 of 2000 titled as Ram Snehi vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. and others contended that defendant No. 3/IFFCO is not ''state'' within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, plaintiff/petitioner has to claim the amount of financial benefits by paying ad valorem court fee thereon.

On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff/petitioner contended that the plaintiff has sought relief of declaration and mandatory injunction only and is, therefore, not liable to pay ad valorem court fee.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions.

In view of judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Ram Sanehi (Supra) and Ram Sanehi (Supra), it is held that defendant No. 3 (IFFCO) is not State. Consequently, plaintiff/petitioner has to claim specified amount of financial benefits for the period from 01.09.2006 till 31.05.2008 as sought in the plaint by paying ad valorem court fee thereon. Merely by couching the relief in the form of mandatory injunction, the plaintiff cannot evade the payment of ad valorem court fee. On the contrary, in the guise and garb of seeking mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of the amount of salary and other benefits for the period from 01.09.2006 till 31.05.2008. Consequently, the suit being for recovery of said amount for all intents and purposes, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. There is, therefore, no infirmity much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court requiring the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.