IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 RSA No.637 of 1998 (O&M)

Reserved on:05.02.2026 Pronounced on:17.02.2026 Uploaded on:17.02.2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Appellants Versus H.N.SHARMA ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants.

Respondent has been proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 11.02.2002.

(cid:1)

(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.02.1997 passed by the learned Trial Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-

respondent, was upheld.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being described in the manner in which they were before the learned Trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting that he was appointed as a Sub Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department on 22.12.1978 and was subsequently regularised in service on 03.12.1980. He continued to serve uninterruptedly and, on completion of the requisite length of service, was granted the benefit of selection grade and was drawing a basic pay of ₹4225/- along with admissible allowances while posted at Charkhi Dadri. The plaintiff was transferred to Sidhmukh Mechanical Sub Division No. III, Hisar on 31.10.1994, where he continued to receive salary in the same scale. However, defendant No.3, namely the Executive Engineer, Sidhmukh Construction Division No. 9, Hisar, while releasing the salary for the month of March 1995, which was paid in April 1995, reduced his basic pay to ₹3400/- instead of ₹4225/- along with allowances. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.3 was not competent to reduce his salary in the absence of any order from the Government or the Engineer-in-Chief and without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved against the withdrawal of the selection grade and reduction of his pay, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from reducing his pay and from interfering with the benefits already granted to him. Hence, the present suit.

4. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of selection grade in view of the Government of Haryana instructions dated 16.05.1990 bearing No.6/38/3PR(FD)87, wherein it was stipulated that the selection grade was admissible only to regular engineers on completion of 12 years of regular and satisfactory service and that the grant of such benefit was restricted to 20% of the cadre posts. It was further averred that the plaintiff, while posted at Charkhi Dadri, was aware of the aforesaid instructions but concealed the same and got his pay fixed in a higher scale by misleading the Executive Engineer, Mohindergarh Division, Charkhi Dadri. In fact, the authority to fix the pay was vested only with the Engineer-in-Chief. It was pleaded that the fixation of pay in favour of the plaintiff was thus without jurisdiction and, on scrutiny of his service record, the inadvertent error came to light, whereafter the pay was corrected in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. The suit was accordingly contested on various preliminary objections, viz., suppression of material facts and that the suit was false, frivolous, not maintainable in law, and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the same.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as ten issues including relief.

6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff e