High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Haryana State & Anr v. Dr.A.R.Ajmani - RSA-1095-2006  RD-P&H 2195 (31 March 2006)
DATE OF DECISION:March 27, 2006
Haryana State and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Siddharth Batra, AAG, Haryana.
The defendants State of Haryana and another have lost before the learned First Appellate Court.
A suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff claiming additional increments on the basis of his higher qualification was dismissed by the learned trial Court. On an appeal, the claim of the plaintiff was upheld by the learned First Appellate Court.
The plaintiff had claimed that he joined the services of the defendants as Medical Officer on June 11,1976. During the course of his employment, he had improved his qualification and had done post-graduation in medicines in the year 1978. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to increments on the basis of his higher qualifications as per instructions issued by the Government. The plaintiff also claimed that a similar relief had been granted to his
wife Dr.Subhita Ajmani by the trial Court and appeal of the defendants had failed before the Appellate Court.
The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that the instructions relied upon by the plaintiff had since been withdrawn.
The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court noticed that the instructions Ex.D2 had been issued by the State Government on June 20,1977 but the same had been withdrawn subsequently through Ex.D1, dated December 20,1982. It was held that the aforesaid withdrawal was merely prospective and, therefore, the right which had been acquired by the plaintiff on the basis of the earlier instructions had never been withdrawn. It was also noticed by the learned First Appellate Court that a similar relief had been granted to Dr.Subhita Ajmani, wife of the plaintiff and the appeal of the defendants had failed before the Appellate Court in that case. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiff was also entitled to a similar relief. The Appellate Court also held that cause of action which had become available to the plaintiff was a recurring cause of action. The appeal of the plaintiff was, thus, allowed. However, the relief available to the plaintiff was confined to a period of 38 months prior to the filing of the suit.
Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 27, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.