R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010

Date of Decision : January 05, 2011

J. C. Kapoor

....

Appellant

Vs.

Govt. of India and others

....

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Appellant in person.

Mr. Punet Gupta, Advocate

for respondents no.2 and 3 – Caveators.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Plaintiff J. C. Kapoor, who was successful in the trial court, but

has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, is in second appeal.

Appellant-plaintiff was working as Office Superintendent in the

office of defendant-respondent no.3 i.e. Regional Director, Regional

Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh (in short – the Institute).

His pre-revised pay scale prior to 01.01.1996 was ₹ 1400-2300. After

revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the plaintiff was placed in pay

scale of ₹ 4500-7000.

R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010

2

The plaintiff's grievance in the suit is that being Office

Superintendent, he should have been placed in revised pay scale of ₹ 5000-

8000 in accordance with recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission

appointed by the Central Government (in short – Fifth Pay Commission).

The plaintiff also claimed fixed medical allowance @ ₹ 100/- per month in

accordance with circular of Central Government.

Defendants controverted the claim of the plaintiff. It was

pleaded that defendants no.2 and 3 i.e. Director General, National Council

for Cooperative Training (in short – the Council) and the Regional Director

of the Institute cannot be sued and only the Institute and the Council could

be sued. Various other objections were also raised. On merits, it was

pleaded that the Council has fixed the revised scale of ₹ 4500-7000 for

Office Superintendents and the said scale is appropriate. Old scale of ₹

1400-2300 was revised to ₹ 4500-7000 by the Council by its notification.

The plaintiff is not entitled to revised scale as per recommendations of the

Fifth Pay Commission, which are applicable to employees of Central

Government and are not automatically applicable to employees of the

Council or the Institute. The Council can adopt its own scales and

accordingly, vide notification dated 06.10.1997, the Council adopted

revised pay scale of ₹ 4500-7000 for old scale of ₹ 1400-2300. The

plaintiff is not entitled to revised pay scale of ₹ 5000-8000. The plaintiff's

claim for fixed medical allowance was also controverted. Various other

R. S. A. No. 4775 of 2010

3

pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide

judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit.

However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by

learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree

dated 26.07.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for

respondents no.2 and 3 – Caveators and also perused the case file.

The appellant vehemently contended that according to Part-A

of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, scale of ₹ 1400-2300 was

revised to ₹ 4500-7000, but in Part-B of the recommendations, the

Commission recommended revised scale of ₹ 5000-8000 for pre-revised

scale of ₹ 1400-2300 for Office Superintendents and therefore, plaintiff-

appellant is entitled to scale of ₹ 5000-8000.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3

contended that recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, as adopted by

the Central Government, have applicability to employees of the Central

Government and the said recommendations are not automatically applicable

to employees of the Council and the Institute and are, therefore, not

applicable to the plaintiff-appellant.