Raj Pal v. Market Committee and Anr

IN T

Raj Pal

Market Commit

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr Mr

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The dated 09.02.199 judgment and allowed.

2.

Bri Division), Jind Committee, Jula is Government Board. The plain the said post wi plaintiff/appella on 15.3.1994 by cumulative effe

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

Versus ttee

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Raman B. Garg, Advocate with r. Mayank Garg, Advocate for th r. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate respondent No.1.

-.-

HARMA, J.

e challenge in the present appe 98 whereby the appeal filed by th decree dated 19.09.1997 filed ief facts of the case as mention are that the plaintiff/appellant w ana as Sweeper on permanent po Agency working under the Ha ntiff/appellant joined service as ithout interruption and was not ant was placed under suspension y the defendant No.1 and his t fect. The plaintiff/appellant fil

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2986-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 22.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA h e appellant. e eal is to the judgment and dec he respondent-defendant against d by the plaintiff/appellant, w ned before the Civil Judge (Jun was in the employment of Mar ost and the said Market Commit aryana State Agriculture Market Sweeper in 1980 and continued offered any promotional post. T n on 4.8.1993 but later on reinsta two increments were stopped w led an appeal before the Ch

cree was nior rket ttee ting d on The ated with

Administrator o passed by defe punishment was order, the plaint during the perio dated 30.8.1994 against the plain committee had plaintiff/appella Administrator, t suspension perio service in 1988, as per Haryana the employees increment was n to the defendan standard scale o service before Market Commit scale despite req

29.5.1995 which but the same wa Agricultural Pro counsel dated 10 did not pay any

of the H.S.A.M.P., Panchkula endant No.1. The said appeal s set aside by Chief Administrato tiff/appellant became entitled to od of suspension, i.e., salary from 4 the defendant did not commenc ntiff/appellant. When the order o d decided not to pay any ant, had been set aside vide the plaintiff/appellant become el od also. Again, as the plaintiff/a the plaintiff/appellant became e Government policy from the y of the market committee by not granted to the plaintiff/appel nt. The plaintiff/appellant was of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1994 for having

31.12.1993 as per Haryana G ttee but the pay of the plaintiff quest made by him. The plaintif h was received by the defendan as ignored deliberately. Legal no oduce Market Act, 1961 was s

0.1.1996. Period of said notice a y heed to the request of the plain

against the order of punishm was accepted and the order or on 30.8.1994. As a result of s his salary which has been held m 1.8.1993 to 15.3.1994. After or ce any enquiry nor passed any or of the committee through which arrears of past period to order dated 30.8.1994 of Ch igible for the arrears for pay for appellant has completed 8 years eligible for one additional increm ear 1992 as made applicable to the board but the said additio llant, inspite of representation m s also entitled to get first hig g completed 10 years of satisfact Government policy as enforced f/appellant was not fixed in hig ff/appellant made representation nt vide diary No.58 dated 6.6.19 otice under Section 31 of the Pun served upon the defendant throu also expired but the defendant ag ntiff/appellant and finally refuse

ment of said d up rder rder hief s of ment o all onal made gher tory d in gher n on njab ugh gain

week back from he deliberately defendant No. 2 met with refusal to file the civil s

3.

Up apart from takin for non-joinder purpose of cour stating that altho Chief Administr afresh after obs ground that the inquiry.

4.

Rej made in the pla denied.

5.

Fro

m releasing the benefits. Defenda refrained from doing his duty a 2 for getting his responsibility l of the defendant on 23.12.1996 suit. on notice, defendants appeared a ng preliminary objections of ma r of necessary parties, plaint b rt fees have controverted all the ough the appeal filed by the plai rator but the case was remande serving the procedure and the punishment was awarded to the joinder to the written statement w aint were reaffirmed and those m om the pleadings of the parties, f

¶1Whether the pla allowances for the pe OPP.

¶2Whether the plain increment after comp OPP.

ant No. 2 is the dealing officer and so he was being impleaded fixed. When the plaintiff/appell 6 he was left with no option exc and filed written statement wher aintainability of suit, suit being b being not properly valued for averments made in the plaint wh intiff/appellant was accepted by ed back for taking necessary act appeal was accepted only on e plaintiff/appellant without regu was filed wherein all the averme made in the written statement w following issues were framed:- aintiff is entitled to his salary a eriod from 4.8.1993 to 15.3.199 ntiff is entitled to an additio leting 8 years of service in 198

and d as lant cept rein bad hile tion ular ents were and 94? onal 88?

6.

Aft learned Civil Ju on 19.09.1997.

7.

The decree dated 19 Jind, vide judgm SUBMISSIONS

8.

Lea Appellate Court by the responden

9.

Per has rightly been

¶3Whether the plai standard scale of p completed 10 years bef

¶4Whether defendant N

¶5Whether the suit is State Agricultural Mar

¶6Whether the suit purposes of court fees

¶7Whether the suit is has other effecacious r

¶8Relief." ter hearing both the parties and udge (Junior Division), Jind allo e appeal preferred by the resp

9.09.1997 was allowed by the ment and decree dated 09.02.199 S OF COUNSEL FOR THE PA arned counsel for the appellan t did not appreciate the facts on nt. r contra, learned counsel for the r n allowed by the learned First Ap

intiff is entitled to First Hig pay w.e.f. 1.1.1994 for hav efore 31.12.9370PD. No. 2 is unnecessarily party?OP s bad for non-joinder of Harya rketing Board?OPD. is not properly valued for and jurisdiction?OPD. s not maintainable as the plain remedy?OPD. the perusing the whole record, owed the suit filed by the appell pondent against the judgment learned Additional District Jud

¶8Hence, the present appeal. ARTIES nt submits that the learned F record and allowed the appeal fi respondent contends that the app ppellate Court.

gher ving PD ana ntiff lant and dge, First filed

10.

I h record of this ca the learned Civi

have heard learned counsel for ase. Relevant portion of the jud il Judge (Junior Division), Jind is "Issue No.1.

¶6Learned counsel for plaintiff joined the market co 1980 and continuous on the plaintiff was suspended on

15.3.1994. When the appeal Market Committee, Panchku regarding stoppage of increm aside, the copy of which is E Administrator, no efforts we release the pay and increme served legal notice through copy is Ex.P2 and postal rec order of Chief Administra started against the plaintiff entitled to claim increment o and is also entitled to be plac pay for having completed 10

1.1.1994. PW2 Sat Narain employee of market commit

29.11.1980 as Sweeper on p now no action has been tak

the parties and perused the wh dgment dated 19.09.1997 passed s reproduced as under:- the plaintiff submitted that ommittee as permanent employee said post without interruption. T n 4.8.1993 but was reinstated l was made to Chief Administra ula, the order of market commi ment and pay of the plaintiff was Ex.P1. When after the order of Ch re made by the marketing board ent of the plaintiff, then the plain h Sh. J.B. Goel, Advocate and ceipts are Ex, P3 and P4. After ator, Panchkula, no enquiry w f till now. As such the plaintiff on completion of 8 years of serv ced in first higher standard scale 0 years of satisfactory service fr Sharma stated that the plaintiff ttee, Julana. He was appointed permanent post. He stated that ken against the plaintiff regard

hole d by e in The on ator ttee s set hief d to ntiff d its was ff is vice e of rom ff is d on till

enquiry which was directed t Administrator, Marketing regular procedure. He adm representation Ex. P10 and He admitted that after char action has been taken till no about the suspension peri

1.8.1993 to

15.3.1994 Administrador, Panchkula. P that according to service b already been given to the

14.10.1992 and now the pla other additional increment. placed among first higher Narain Sharma also state suspension period of the pla would be followed by the ma would be taken against th counsel for the plaintiff also Haryana (P.H.D.) 1997(3) "where the employee is re prejudice to enquiry, his ann suspension period cannot b that an enquiry is contempla

to be made against him by the Ch Board, Panchkula by observ mitted that the plaintiff had gi legal notice Ex.P2 to their off rge-sheeting the plaintiff again, ow and no decision has been ta iod of plaintiff which was fr which wes resent by Ch PW2 Sat Narain Sharma also sta book one additional increment e plaintiff vide resolution da aintiff is not entitled to claim a Also plaintiff is not entitled to standard scale of pay. PW2 ed that the decision about aintiff taken by the marketing bo arket committee, Julana and act he plaintiff accordingly. Learn relied upon Rai Kumar Vs. State S.C.T., wherein it was held t einstated pending enquiry with nual increments and salary for be withheld merely on the grou ted against him."

hief ving iven fice. ken rom hief ated has ated any o be Sat ard tion ned e of that hout

¶7Learned counsel for t Partap Singh in his stateme is given after completion o manner but enquiry regar satisfactory service of the p admitted that except the misused the market committ and violated the Government other dis-satisfaction was e plaintiff and denied that increment of the plaintiff in o it is correct that the plai committee, Julana and he c such. On perusal of oral and am of the opinion that DW1 except the allegation framed which he was suspended fro dissatisfaction was ever obse Therefore, it cannot be said the satisfactory service of regarding payment of salary period from 4.8.1993 to 15 goes in favour of plaintiff and

the defendant submitted that D nt stated that additional increm of 8 years service in satisfact rding completion of 8 years plaintiff is still pending but he a allegation that the plaintiff h tee tractor without any permiss t employees conduct Rules 1966, ever observed in the service of they had stopped the pay a order to harass him. He stated t intiff is the employee of mar cannot be transferred anywhere d documentary evidence adduce W1 Partap Singh himself stated t d against the plaintiff on accoun om 4.8.1993 to 15.3.1994, no ot erved in the service of the plain d that the plaintiff has not rende 8 years continuously. This is y and allowances for the suspens

5.3.1994 alongwith all the arre d against the defendant.

DW2 ment tory of also had sion , no and that rket e as d, I that nt of ther tiff. ered ssue sion

ISSUE No. 2.

¶8Learned counsel for evidence of DW1 Partap Si has completed 8 years of sa 1988 no complaint was ever the plaintiff was suspended ground that the plaintiff had committee, Julana and as employees conduct rules. Bu reinstated the plaintiff after committee, Julana and direc to start fresh enquiry against action has been taken agai counsel for the defendant su years of satisfactory servic doing till the filing of the p counsel for the defendant plaintiff regarding addition years of service in 1988 is should have filed the suit f because by the Haryana Go had become entitled to cl ground of 8 years of service. relied upon State of Punjab (P&H) 1996(2) S.C. T. pag

the plaintiff argued that from ingh, it is evident that the plain atisfactory service. During 1980 levelled against him. It is true t on 4.8.1993 but it was only on d misused the tractor of the mar s such violated the Governm ut Chief Administrator, Panchk r setting aside the order of mar cted the market committee, Jula t the plaintiff but after that order inst the plaintiff till now. Learn ubmitted that plaintiff complete ce in 1988 but what was plain present suit on 22.1.1977. Learn submitted that the claim of nal increment after completing s clearly time barred because for the said purpose before 19 overnment policy of 1992 plain laim additional increment on . Learned counsel for the defend b Vs. Babu Singh, Head Consta ge 91, Punjab State Vs. Darsh

ntiff 0 to that rket ment kula rket ana r no ned ed 8 ntiff ned g 8 he ntiff dant able

Kumar, S.C. 1996(2) S.C. T. whose orders of stoppage o expiry of 3 years, they cann Limitation Act is attracted. T above, the claim of the plain increment on the ground of vide Haryana Government barred. Thus, this issue goes the plaintiff. ISSUE No. 3. Learned counsel for the pla entitled to be placed in first

1.1.1994 for having compl

31.12.1993 as per Haryana the plaintiff had made repr Ex.P5 which was received in No.58 dated 6.6.1995 but the same and did not concede Leerned counsel for the def law that a person should b completion of 8 years of ser 10 years of service, he can counsel for the defendant Agricultural Produce Mark should be brought within six

page 208, wherein it was held t of increment are challenged af not be quashed and Article 113 Thus, in view of the authorities ci ntiff that he is entitled to additio f completion of 8 years of serv t policy of 1992 is clearly t s in favour of defendant and aga aintiff submitted that the plaintiff higher standard scale of pay w. leted 10 years of service bef Government policy. He stated t resentation on 29.5.1995 which n the office of defendant vide di e defendant deliberately ignored e to the request of the plain fendant submitted that there is be given both the benefits, first rvice and second on completion n claim only one benefit. Learn referred to Section 31 of Punj kets Act, 1961, whereby the s x months from the date of accrua

that fter 3 of ited onal vice ime inst ff is .e.f. fore that h is iary tiff. on n of ned njab suit

cause of action and as suc Learned counsel for the plai written statement defendant plaintiff is pre-mature on o learned counsel for the defen plaintiff is clearly time bar should take one attitude w whether the sit is time barre submitted that they had m same on 29.5.1995 but no rep could have stated that the cla but nothing was received by the plaintiff again submitt represen-tation on 25.9.1 among first higher standard because cause of action h Learned counsel for the suspension order of the pla regular procedure was not was not decided on merits. I counsel for the plaintiff sub defendant and for their defau to suffer. Also when the defen against the plaintiff, the def after the said order also t

ch, this relief is also time bar intiff in answer sulmitted that in has sulmitted that the case of one side and on the other ha ndant is saying that the claim of rred. He stated that the defend whether the suit is pre-matured ed. Learned counsel for the plain made representation regarding eply was given to them. At least t aim of the plaintiff was time bar y the plaintiff. Learned counsel ted that as they had made 995 their claim of being pla d scale of pay is not time bar had accrued after representati e defendant submitted that aintiff had been set aside beca observed by the defendant and In answer to that question learn bmitted that it was default of ult the plaintiff should not be ma ndant vas directed to start enqui efendant did not start any enqu till now. Learned counsel for

rred and, f the dant d or ntiff they rred for ced rred ion. ause d it ned ade iry

plaintiff again submitted tha they have also issued legal Agricultural Produce Mark

10.1.1996. When the period received by them then they their claim is within limi reasoning I am of the conf plaintiff of being placed in f w.e.f. 1.1.1994 for having within limitation because t

29.5.1995 and again they ha As such their claim is within goes in favour of plaintiff and ISSUE No.8 Relief:

¶12In view of aforesaid r succeeds and the same is de that the plaintiff is entitled for the period from 1.8.199 entitled to be placed in first

1.1.1994 for having comple arrears of such benefits wit annum with the direction to releasing the due amount, a sheet be prepared. File be c due compliance."

at before filing of the present s notice under Section 31 of Punj kets Act, 1961 through counsel of notice expired and no reply w filed the present suit and as su tation. In view of the afores nfirmed opinion that claim of first higher standard scale of p completed 10 years of service they had made representation ad served legal notice on 10.1.19 n period of limitation and this is d against the defendant. reasoning the suit of the plain creed with declaration to the eff to get his full pay and allowan 93 to 15.3.1994 and he has a higher standard scale of pay w. eted 10 years of service alongw th interest at the rate of 18% p o the defendant for computing a alongwith costs of the suit. Decr consigned to the record room af

suit njab on was uch said pay e is on

¶996ssue ntiff ffect nces also .e.f. with per and ree-

11.

Rel learned First Ap

levant portion of the judgment ppellate Court is reproduced as u "7. Counsel for the appell wrongly decreed the suit bec that every suit which ma Agricultural Marketing Boa members or employee there months from the date of acc notice showing the intention before hand. In the present c was filed much beyond the p section 31(2) of the Act. The the trial court. So far as de eight years of service is con rejected the relief to the resp limitation, but limitation was taken from all angles the increment is barred and, the in the result of issue No.2.

¶8As regards issues No.1 required to discuss the aspe Act. The court while mention to section 31 of the Act, all did not stick to one defenc asserting that the suit was pr

t dated 09.02.1998 passed by under:- lant has argued that the trial co cause section 31 of the Act requi ay be instituted or against ard or Committee or against a eof, has to be instituted within crual of cause of action and als n to file such suit has to be ser case notice was served but the s period of limitation as laid down e said aspect was not considered enial of increment after complet ncerned, the trial court in any c pondent-plaintiff on the ground s taken as three years. In any c claim of the plaintiff qua s erefore, no interference is called and 3 the trial court was a ct of limitation as laid down in ning that the defendant had refer the same held that the defenda ce because at one time they w re-mature and at the other time t

ourt ires any six so a rved suit n in d by ting case d of case said for also rred ants were

were asserting that it was ti ground for holding that the specific law laid down in se trial court to see the aspect defence to that effect had no brought to its notice, it was whether such provisions of present case and whether t defendants had taken the pl that the matter of suspension aspect had nothing to do wit suit which he had to file in section 31 of the Act. He is being aware that such a not say that he was not aware th months from the date of c ignorance of law is no excuse

¶9It has come on record in way of the statements of the has not yet been finally dec awaited because the matter concerned for finalization. T was justified that the suit wa finally decided by the depar come to the court. Thus, reli

ime barred. This, however, was e suit was within limitation desp ection 31 of the Act. It was for t of limitation even if a particu ot been taken. Once section 31 w bound on duty of the court to f law did or did not apply to the suit was within limitation. T lea of pre-maturity on the grou n was still not finally decided. T th the right of the plaintiff to file accordance with the provisions ssued a notice under the said tice was required. He thus, can hat the suit was to be filed within cause of action. Even otherw e. n the evidence of the defendants e official witnesses that the ma cided and that final report is s r has been referred to the Bo That way the plea of the defenda as pre-matured. Unless the matte rtment, the plaintiff could not h ief granted to him under issues N

s no pite ular was see The und That s of Act nnot six wise, s by tter still ard ants er is ave

ANALYSIS OF

12.

The as DW-1 stated service. He fur was ever record

04.08.1993 on t Julana and as s Chief Administr of Marketing Co inquiry against t appellant. The a

13.

A p Court on the on the matter regar whereas on the report of the ap further held tha justified becaus Act and also bec

1 and 3 was also not justifie per the provisions of Section matter has not yet been f findings on issues No. 1 an against the respondent-pla above." F RECORD e admitted fact in this case is tha d that the plaintiff/appellant co rther stated that during the perio ded against the plaintiff/appellan the ground that he had misused such violated the Government E rator, Panchkula reinstated the ap ommittee, Julana and directed th the plaintiff/appellant but after t appellant retired from service on perusal of the record further sho ne hand decided issue No.1 again rding the suspension period of th other hand it has been held that ppellant/respondent was awaite t the relief granted to the appell e his suit was not filed as per t cause the matter was not finally d

ed because his suit was not filed n 31 of the Act and also because finally decided against him. T nd 3 are revised holding the sa aintiff for the reasons mention at Partap Singh, who was examin ompleted 08 years of satisfact od from 1982 to 1989 no compla nt. The appellant was suspended d the tractor of Market Committ Employees Conduct Rules but ppellant after setting aside the or he Market Committee to start a fr that no action was taken against n 31.12.2016. ows that the learned First Appel nst the appellant on the ground t he appellant was not finally deci t suit was premature since the fi d. Learned First Appellate Co lant under Issue No.1 & 3 was the provisions of Section 31 of decided against him.

d as The ame ned ned tory aint d on tee, rder resh late that ded final ourt

14.

Thi Court on the gro other hand he is was premature one appeal.

15.

In v dated 09.02.199 and decree dated

16.

Dec

17.

Pen

October 22, 202 A.Kaundal

Whethe

Whethe

is finding of the First Appella ound that on one hand, he has d s holding that the suit was barr and rather three contradictory o view of the above, the appeal is 98 passed by the First Appellate d 19.09.1997 passed by the learn cree-sheet be drawn accordingly nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ate Court is not acceptable to t decided issues on merits and on red by limitation and further tha observations/decisions are taken allowed. The judgment and dec Court is set aside and the judgm ned trial Court is upheld. y. tand disposed of.. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

this at it n in cree