S. M. N. RAINA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit pertaining to service matter regarding his seniority and fixation of pay,

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a clerk on 14-10-1947 in the former state of Gwalior. He served in the Food Department of the former State of madhya Bharat upto 31-3-54. On 1-4-54 he was retrenched from that department, taut was absorbed on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Tahsil office at Shiv-puri on 5-10-54 in the grade of Rs. 50-3-80. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Treasury Shivpuri and worked there as Upper Division Clerk upto August 1957. In the provisional integration list of employees of the treasury of Madhya Bharat he was shown as a confirmed Treasury Accountant and his name appeared at serial No. 17 vide Ex. P-7. In the final gradation last (Ex. P-9) also the plaintiff was included in the gradation list of Accountants at serial No. 17. In the provisional list he was shown in the grade of Rs. 120-250, but in the final gradation list he was shown in the scale of Rs. 100-200. The contention of the plaintiff is that he was entitled to the grade of Rs. 120-250 and his pay in the unified revised scale of Accountants should be fixed accordingly. He has also claimed that in the final gradation list, he should have been shown at serial No. 13 and not at No. 17. He, therefore, filed a suit seeking a declaration in respect of the aforesaid masters.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the claim regarding fixation of pay, but his claim regarding seniority was dismissed. The appellant, however, did not file any appeal against the dismissal of his claim regarding seniority and as such the question of seniority is no longer in issue in this appeal.

( 4 ) THE State Government filed an appeal against the decision of the trial Court regarding fixation of pay. The appeal was allowed by the learned Additional district Judge, Gwalior, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

( 5 ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 120-250 as an Accountant. In the provisional gradation list (Ex. P-7) he was shown as an Accountant on revised scale of Rs. 120-250. I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the provisional gradation list does not confer on the plaintiff any right to the said scale of pay because it was a list pending further consideration before fina-lisation. It is significant, however, that in the final gradation list of accountants (Ex. P-9) also the plaintiff was shown as Accountant. It is, therefore, clear that the then Government of Madhya Bharat had decided to absorb the plaintiff as an Accountant. There is nothing to show that there was any intention on the part of the Government to siplit the cadre of Accountants into different grades. On the other hand, it would appear from the report of the integration Committee (Ex. P-15) that the Committee had proposed 3 posts of accountants in the grade of Rs. 100-150 (revised to Rs. 120-250) and 14 (posts of Accountants in the scale of Rs. 70-120 (revised to Rs. 120-250 ). Thus, it would appear that the Integration Committee had recommended revised scale of pay of Rs. 120-250 for all the 17 posts of Accountants sanctioned in the new set-up. Therefore, there appears to be no justification for singling out the plaintiff and denying him the revised pay scale of Rs. 120-250, particularly when it was decided to absorb him as an Accountant. ( 6 ) SHRI R. S. Bajpayee, learned Government Advocate submitted that there were only 16 Treasuries in the former State of Madhya Bharat and, therefore, a cadre of 16 Treasury Accountants in the scale of Rs. 120-250 was created, but no order of the Government has been filed to show that the Government intended to create only 16 posts in the scale of Rs. 120-250. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document