State of Punjab and Another vs Smt. Krishana Jain

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sangrur, whereby part relief has been granted to the respondent-plaintiff (Krishna Jain). Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Krishana Jain filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction claiming that direction may be issued to the respondent-State and others to treat her as Headmistress of Industrial Training Schools (General Cadre) and allow her pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as applicable to the Headmistress of Government Industrial Training School for Girls in the State of Punjab and also claimed other service benefits attached to the said cadre and further for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-State from transferring/shifting her from Government Industrial Training School for Girls, Sunam treating her as Headmistress of the Government Industrial Centre for Women, Muktsar. The defendants-State appeared in the case and had admitted in the written statement that plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a Craft Instructress through the Subordinate Services Selection Board w.e.f. 22.11.1965 and it is submitted that she was appointed under the Economic Uplift Scheme at Government Insutrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar. She was confirmed as Craft Instructress w.e.f. 14.04.1976 and again as Headmistress in the Government Industrial Training Centre Cadre w.e.f. 20.11.1977. It is admitted that initial grade of the Headmistresses of Government Industrial Training Schools for Girls was Rs. 140-200 and that of Government Industrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar was Rs. 250-350. Further, the grades of these cadres were revised to Rs. 300-500. It is also admitted that the basic qualifications and nature of duties are the same. The plaintiff-respondent was transferred to Government Industrial Training Schools for girls cadre at her own request and on administrative grounds without changing her cadre. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent was transferred vide order dated 27.05.1985 from Government Industrial Training School for Girls, Sunam to Industrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar in her own cadre and in public interest.

The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the plaintiff was recruited for the Government Industrial Training Centre for Women for Muktsar as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 750-1400? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to remain posted at the Government Industrial Training School for Girls at Sunam in the general cadre of the girls School? OPP

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPP

Whether the plaintiff served notice u/s 80 CPC before the filing of the suit? If not to what effect? OPP

Relief.

The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record recorded a finding that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent to be integrated in the cadre of Headmistress of Government Industrial Training Schools for girls, is declined. However, she was granted decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants-State to allow her the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as Headmistress of Government Industrial Training Centre, Muktsar w.e.f. 01.01.1978. Against the said judgment, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent before the learned lower appellate Court, which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was modified and it was held that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to be integrated in Cadre of Headmistress of Govt. Industrial Training School for Girls and was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as Headmistress Govt. Industrial Training Centre, Muktsar w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Against the said judgment and decree, the instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the State.

When the appeal was admitted, no substantial questions of law were framed nor are mentioned in the grounds of appeal filed by the State. However, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel prays that the substantial question of law with regard to non-reading of evidence and mis-reading of evidence on record arises. As such, the following substantial question of law is framed:

Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on non-reading and mis-reading of evidence on record?

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Craft Instructress through the Subordinate Services Selection Board vide order dated 12.11.1965. She joined the said post in the pay scale of Rs. 120-8-200 and senior scale of Rs. 200-10-230/15-430-20-450, was granted to her w.e.f. 01.01.1970. It is also admitted that in the letter of appointment, there was no condition that she would be recruited permanently under the Economic Uplift Scheme. She was posted at Government Industrial Training Centre for Women, Muktsar. It is also admitted that the plaintiff-respondent was promoted as a Headmistress w.e.f. November 1976 and posted at the said Centre and confirmed w.e.f. 19.11.1977. Initial pay scale of Headmistress of Government Industrial Training Schools for Girls was Rs. 140-200, which was later on revised to Rs. 300-500 for both the cadres. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the qualification and duties of both the posts are same. The lower Appellate court has recorded a categorical finding that since the pay scale and duties of both the cadres are same, the respondent-plaintiff herein i.e. Krishana Jain is entitled to be integrated in the cadre of Headmistress of Government Industrial Training School for Girls. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 as Headmistress, Government Industrial Training Centre, Muktsar w.e.f. 01.01.1978.

Learned State counsel failed to point out that once the duties and the pay scales for both the cadre are made, how the State is prejudiced in this regard. Admittedly, when the plaintiff-respondent was appointed, it was not mentioned that she has been appointed under the Economic Uplift Scheme. Learned State counsel has failed to point out the same from the appointment letter. Learned State counsel failed to show which material evidence has not been read. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below after appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court modifying the order of the Trial Court. As such, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.