AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 521 of 1987, and 522 of 1987 since common questions of law and fact arise in these cases. I will refer to the pleadings and the evidence brought on record for the purpose of disposal of these appeals as given in R. S. A. No. 521 of 1987. I will also refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the original suit.
The matrix of the case as pleaded in the plaint is:The Plaintiff is a Class IV employee (Peon) and is working as such in the Defendants'' institution, namely, Saraswati Sanskrit Vidyalaya Trust and Management Society, Khanna. He joined the institution on April 26, 1976 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 150/- and was confirmed with effect from October 1, 1976 and was awarded the grade of Rs. 70-2-80/ 3-95. The Defendant is affiliated to the Panjab University and it gets aid from the Punjab Government as also from Central Government. According to Rule 2(XVI) of Volume III of the University Calender, the Plaintiff is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 300-5-325/5-350/ 10-430 (for brevity the grade of Rs. 300-430) The Defendant did not grant him the said grade necessitating the filing of the instant suit.The Plaintiff sought a declaration that he is entitled to the grade of Rs. 300-430 with effect from September I, and for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to place the Plaintiff in the said grade.
The Defendant controverted the allegations by inter-alia pleading that the suit is barred by limitation; that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is not maintainable since the calender of the University is not applicable to it The provisions of the calender applies to non-Government affiliated degree colleges. It was affiliated to the Panjab University only for the limited purpose of holding examinations for the classes of Prajna, Visharad and Shastri. The Defendants denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to the revised grade.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction prayed for ? OPP
Whether the suit Is within limitation ? OPP
Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPP
Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
Relief.
The learned trial Judge found that the Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration sought for and that the suit was within limitation and that the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
On appeal, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was maintained. The learned first appellate Court held that the Defendant institution is affiliated to the Panjab University It also found that the Defendant is getting grant from the State and Central Government. It further held that the suit as framed is maintainable and accordingly affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge. The learned appellate Judge held that the Plaintiff is entitled to the revised grade with effect from September 1, 1978. The Defendants came up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Judge to this Court.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on October 7, 1988, I found that there was a serious dispute between the parties on the question ''whether the Defendant-institution is affiliated to the Panjab University or not ? There was no direct evidence available on record. In this situation, I decided to call the Registrar of the Panjab University as a Court witness to depose whether the Defendant-institution was affiliated, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to the Panjab University. The statement of the Registrar was recorded on October 26, 1988. Both the parties were given ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The evidence of this witness is a clincher to the important issue involved in the appeal. Shri H.L. Sharma, Registrar, in an unequivocal term stated that the Defendant-institution was accorded affiliation by the Syndicate of the Panjab University in its meeting held on September 21, 1957 and this affiliation was withdrawn by the
Panjab University at a request by the Defendants and on March 29, 1987. The Senate of the University passed the following resolution: -
The affiliation already granted to Shri Saraswati Sanskrit College Khanna, for Prajna, Visharad, Shastri and Sahityacharya examinations be withdrawn and the College be granted association for these courses, w.ef. the Session 1986-87, subject to the fulfilment of all the conditions prescribed in that behalf, including the salaries of the staff to be approved by the Vice Chancellor and ensure that no retrenchment of the staff shall be made
The Defendant-institution was disaffiliated from the session 1986-87. Prior thereto it remained affiliated to the Panjab University. The statement of c.w.1 Shri H.L. Sharma, Registrar indicates that an affiliated college has to pay the same scale of pay to class IV employees as is permissible to the non-Government affiliated colleges and the grades permissible are as given in Panjab University Calender Volume III of 1985. The Plaintiff produced a copy of letter beaning endorsement No. 9759 of 22.7.1981 addressed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration) to the Principal Shri Saraswati Sanskrit College, Khanna. This letter was produced on record by the Plaintiff at the trial but it was not proved. In his examination, the Registrar admitted the issuance of letter bearing endorsement No. 9759 dated 22.7.1981 and it establishes that the Peons and Malis are entitled to the grade of Rs. 300-5-325-EB-5-350-EB-10-430. It will be useful to reproduce this letter in extenso:
I am sending herewith a copy of representation received from Shri Om Parkash (Peon) & Sh. Cheddi Ram (Gardner) for your comments.
Your attention is invited to the following Rule 9 available at page 177 of p. II. Cal Vol. III, 1981
The working hours of the Ministerial staff shall be 7 (seven) hours with half-an-hour interval for lunch."
Under Rule 11 (xvi) at page 178-79 of P. 11. Cal. Vol. III, 1981, the pay scale applicable to Peon and Mali is Rs. 300-5-325-EB-5-350-EB-10-4?0.
The circumstances under which the rules of the University were not implemented in the case of non-teaching employees may be intimated at an early date.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-(S. P. Arora) Deputy Registrar (Admn.)
It appears that despite specific directions issued by the Panjab University, the Appellants did not comply with the same. In view of the fact that the Defendant-institution remained affiliated to the Panjab University till the Session 1986- 87 and the affiliation was withdrawn by the Panjab University at the request of the Defendants, they are bound to pay the same pay scales to its class IV employees as contained in the letter reproduced in extenso above. Resultantly, I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to the grade of Rs. 300-430 with effect from September 1, 1978 till the institution of the suit.
Mr. D.R. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Appellants sought I to argue that affiliation could not be granted to the Defendants as the f institution does not fall within the ambit of a University as contained in Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Since it was not a University within the meaning of this provisions, it was not entitled to the grants from the University Grants Commission under the said Act. The submission of the learned Counsel is not tenable. It is a fact that at the request of the Defendants, the University granted affiliation to the Defendant-institution and at its request disaffiliated the same. It is not open to learned Counsel for the Appellants to contend that affiliation could not be granted at the request of the Appellants and it was withdrawn when a request was so made
No other argument was raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Resultantly, I maintain the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Judge and hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to the grade of Rs 300-5-325-EB-5-350-EB-10-430 with effect from September 1, 1978 till the date of institution of the suit However, in the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs