S.R. Sainbhi v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant, who was working as Executive Engineer in SYL canal project, had filed the suit claiming Rs. 150/- as a special pay on the ground that he was performing some arduous duties for which he was entitled to a special pay. The appellant had worked on SYL project from 24.8.1977 to 19.11.1978. As per the averment made in the suit, this special pay was granted to all Executive Engineers working in the Head Office Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh. Averment further is that the Administrative Department of Irrigation and Power Department had granted special pay to the Executive Engineer working in the Canal Project w.e.f. 1.3.1982 vide memo dated 25.5.1983. Special pay was also sanctioned to Executive Engineers, Head Office Thein Dam Regular Second Appeal No. 347 of 1990 2 during February, 1978. The plea is that the duties assigned to the Executive Engineers of SYL Head Office are of special and arduous nature which were common to all Executive Engineers of Head Office and thus requirement of Rule 2.25 of CSR Volume I Part I stood fully met, which would entitle the appellant to special pay of Rs. 150/- for the period he had worked on this post. The appellant would also rely on the recommendation made by the Expert Committee which had taken a view that all posts of Engineers in Research, Irrigation and Head Office etc. should be allowed special pay to attract suitable officers. The appellant had met the Finance Secretary, Punjab who had assured him that no disparity would be allowed and he would be allowed the special pay. The appellant also submitted the representation on 8.8.1984, in which it was stated that the appellant was the solitary person left for the grant of special pay. The appellant had thus filed a suit making a claim for recovery Rs. 3960/- i.e. Rs. 2234/- as arrears of special pay and Rs. 7726/- as interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.11.1978 to

22.4.1985. In the written statement filed, the claim made by the appellant was contested. It was stated that the suit was not maintainable in the form it was presented. It was further pointed out that special pay is attached to the post and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The plea further was that no cause of action accrued to the appellant and that no notice was served under Section 80 CPC for the relief which was claimed in the suit. On merits, it was stated that the special pay is attached to the post of Executive Engineers, Head Office, SYL Canal Project. The plea was that the case of the Regular Second Appeal No. 347 of 1990 3 appellant was considered and rejected by the Government as it was not covered under the provisions contained in Rule 18.13 of Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I. The trial proceeded on the following issues:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 3960/-? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

Whether the plaintiff served a valid notice U/s 80 CPC before institution of the suit? OPO.

Relief. No substantial question has been formulated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the substantial question of law in regard to discrimination would arise in this case. He would further submit that right of a appellant to claim special pay in view of the arduous nature of duties performed in termes of Rule

2.25 of the rules would also arise. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is for the Department to see whether the duties performed on a particular post are of arduous nature or not. The appellant only has right for consideration. The case of the appellant was considered and the Government took a view that he was not performing any such duties which were arduous in nature. The appellant sought to equate his duties with those working as Executive Engineers, Head Office SYL Canal Project. There is no basis made in the suit to show that the duties performed by the Executive Engineer in this office was same or identical to the one performed by one who were granted Regular Second Appeal No. 347 of 1990 4 special pay. In any case, it is doubtful whether such a claim is justiciable or not. I do not find any legal point of substance arising in this case. It is a case of simple plea for granting special pay which was considered and declined. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. May 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE