S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

The matter was heard on 5-3-97 exparte and judgment was reserved.

2. The present appellant filed a O. S. No. 1711 of 1971 (City) which was decided by the IVth Munsif, Kanpur, on 24-8-76 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1976 and the appeal was also dismissed on 25-4-79 by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, only there after the present appeal was preferred by the plaintiff.

3, The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled to be designated as a Fitter Armourer in Group I against Airmans Vacancy (up to the rank of a Corporal) in the revised pay scale of Rs. 150-240 with retrospective effect in accord ance with A. F. O. No. 78 of 1963 and AF. O. No. 362 of 1966, with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to assign correct designation and revised scale of pay to the plaintiff in accord ance with the declaration to be granted with retrospective effect. The plaintiff had al leged that he was appointed on 19-6-64 as an Armourer against Airman Fitter Armourer vacancy. According to him, the trade of Air man Armourer fell in Group II while the trade of Airman Fitter Armourer fell in Group I trade carrying different scales of pay. He insisted that since he was appointed against the vacancy of Armourer belonging to Group I trade, he was entitled to the scale admissible thereto. On 22-8-69 the plaintiff came to know for the first time that he was given a designation Armourer Group II. He submitted a representation to the Officer Commanding but his representation was rejected. The suit was filed after a notice under Section 80 C. P. C.

4. The defendant contested the suit. It was accepted that the plaintiff was ap pointed as an Armourer against Airman Fitter Armourer vacancy. The defendant, however, pleaded that merely because of an appointment against Fitter Armourer Vacancy Group I, the plaintiff was not en titled to be designated as Fitter Armourer in Group I and to get the scale of pay as admissible for that group. The defendant disclosed that an appointment against a Group I trade could not be made by direct recruitment which was a promotional post. The defendant also pleaded that the suit. was barred by time and also by principles of estoppel and acquisance. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not to be desig nated as Fitter Armourer against Group I. It also found that the suit was barred by time. According to the trial Court, the plaintiff was appointed on 19-6-64 and cause of action if any arose on that date only or latest by 25-6-64 when the appointment was published in an office order. The suit was filed in 1971 i. e. after more than six years, beyond the period of limitation of three years. The trial Court held that the suit was barred on the principles of estoppel and acquisence, as the plaintiff had accepted a lower pay from 1964 to 1969 and had accepted a lower designation also.

5. The first appellate Court discussed the issue afresh. It was held that names were sought from the employment exchange for appointment against posts of Armourer Group II. After appointment the plaintiff was always treated as Armour II only. The promotion rules were also before the Court below and a Grade I Armourers post was a promotional one for persons having five years experience and having passed a trade test. Papers are there to snow that the plaintiffs names was sent for appointment to the post of Armourer Grade II only. The Court further found that the plaintiff-ap pellant could not have a right to the post of Armourer Grade I as he was neither selected nor was he qualified at that time for appointment against that post. He con firmed the view of the trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation.

6. When the appeal was admitted on 20-2-80 the Court had accepted it to be heard on certain substantial questions of law those are points (A), (B), (C) and (F) as mentioned in the memo of appeal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document