The court upheld the first appellate court's finding that the plaintiff was not appointed on terms disadvantageous to him and that no opportunity of being heard was given before placing him in a lower scale, which influenced the decision to dismiss the appeal.

K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal directed by the State of Punjab and others against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987 vide which Shri Pirthipal Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Patiala, accepted the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1985 passed by Shri J.R. Singla Sub Judge first Class, Patiala.

2. Briefly stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he continues in the grade of Rs. 200-450/-, subsequently revised to Rs. 700-1200 w.e.f. 1.1.1978, and is entitled to all the benefits of the grade aforesaid and service benefit of regularization and seniority arising from the plaintiffs previous service from 2.4.1966 to 22.12.1967.

3. It is pleaded that plaintiff was appointed by the Superintending Engineer first Bhakra Main Line Circle, Patiala Tubwell Division Malerkotla as Sectional Officer in the grade of Rs. 100-10-200-10-300/- in the Punjab Irrigation Department and he served from 2.4.1966 to 11.7.1966 in first Bhakhra Main Line Circle, Patiala from 1.12.1966 to 31.5.1967 in Tubewell Division Malerkotla and from 23.6.1967 to 22.12.1967, in Tubewell Division, Malerkotla. The services of the plaintiff were terminated due to absorption of regular Sectional Officer (Mechanical). The plaintiff was again appointed as Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 100-10-250 in the Government Quality Marketing Centre for engineering Goods Malerkotla, on 20.3.1968. Afterwards, on the basis of Punjab Pay Commission, he was placed on the grade of Rs. 200-450/- and received all the arrears. The Pay Commission had given this grade to all the diploma holders in mechanical Engineering working in the various department throughout the State. So, the plaintiff being a diploma holder in mechanical engineering was given the grade of Rs. 200-450/- rightly. He was demoted from the original appointment from Technical Assistant to the post of Inspector on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 140-300 w.e.f. 9.12.1969 vide order dated 24.12.1969 which order has been declared to be illegal and void. The services of the plaintiff were regularized after more than seven years w.e.f. 1.1.1973 as Inspector in the grade of Rs. 160-400/-. The plaintiff sent various reminders for regularization of his services in original grade of Rs. 200-450, but all in vain.

4. Learned counsel for the State and other appellants herein, filed written statement denying the contents of plaint submitting therein that as per terms and conditions, the services of the plaintiff were terminated on expiry of stipulated period which fell on 25.9.1969. He was again appointed as Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis from 27.9.1969 to 8.12.1969. On completion of his term on 8.12.1969, his services were terminated and thereafter, he was appointed as Inspector in the scale of Rs. 140-300/- w.e.f. 9.12.1969.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for ? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction ? OPD.

4. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is bad due to non-service of notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD.

7. Relief.

6. The trial Court recorded the findings on Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff whereas Issue Nos. 2 to 5 were given up. Issue No. 6 was decided against the defendants. However, in view of the findings on Issue No. 1, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1985, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court. Shri Pirthipal Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Patiala vide its judgment and decree dated 26.7.1985 returned the finding on Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and partly accepted the appe