JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant/defendant-State, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1997 of the learned District Judge, Faridkot, which reversed the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 25.01.1995 of the learned Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Faridkot, respectfully invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”). The appellant seeks restoration of the decree rightly granted by the learned Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by the impugned decree. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, grave errors of law, and is a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record, resulting in serious injustice..

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly stated as follows:-

“It was averred by the plaintiff that he entered the service of the Punjab Government in the year 1969 as an Assistant Pump Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 42–50 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Pump Driver/Operator in the year 1975. It was pleaded that, vide memorandum dated 14.11.1970, the pay scale of the post of Pump Operator/Water Pump Mechanical was revised to Rs. 110–180.

It was further alleged that the post of Pump Operator is equivalent to the post of Water Pump Mechanical, as duly recognized vide memorandum dated 23.07.1972, and, consequently, the plaintiff became entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 110–180 with effect from 15.02.1970. It was pleaded that the said pay scale had already been granted to similarly situated Pump Operators, including one Varinder Kumar Joshi, who was serving in the Public Health Government Works Division, Bathinda.

The plaintiff alleged that despite being similarly circumstanced, he had been subjected to hostile discrimination and denied the benefit of the revised pay scale. It was pleaded that repeated representations made by the plaintiff to the defendants for grant of the said scale yielded no result. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendants; however, they failed to accede to his legitimate claim. On these averments, the plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to the declaratory relief as prayed for.”

3. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed their submissions as follows:-

“The suit was contested by the defendants, who raised preliminary objections to the maintainability thereof. It was pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that no valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served upon the defendants, that the suit was barred by limitation, and that it had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff had joined the service of the Punjab Government on 01.05.1968 as an Assistant Pump Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 42½ –52½ in the Bathinda Division, and a photocopy of his service book was annexed as Annexure ‘A’. However, it was specifically denied that the plaintiff was ever promoted to the post of Pump Driver. It was admitted that, vide memorandum No. 31397 dated 11.08.1971, the post of Water Pump Mechanic (Diesel and Electric) was granted the pay scale of Rs. 110–180.

It was further pleaded that the letter dated 23.07.1972 did not establish that the post of Pump Operator was equivalent to the post of Water Pump Mechanic. It was asserted that the plaintiff was neither a Pump Operator nor a Water Pump Mechanic and, therefore, was not entitled to the claimed pay scale. On these grounds, it was contended that the suit was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.”

4. After a meticulous and exhaustive examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions advanced by both parties, the learned Trial Court framed s