In a second appeal regarding an extra duty allowance of Rs. 200, the court dismissed the appeal, accepting the first appellate court's view that the resolution granting the allowance was prospective, not retrospective.
The appeal was dismissed; the order of the First Appellate Court allowing the claim up to a certain date stood affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2310 of 1986
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2310 of 1986 Date of decision: 12.03.2010
Dr. Satya Nand
...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Committee, Amritsar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Indu Bali, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The basic issue involved flows from resolution passed by the Municipal Committee which has been produced in Roman in the order and reads as under:-
“Daftri sifarash noo mukh rakhdian Dr. Satya Nand noo 200 rupee allowance additional duty de vajon den di manzoori diti jandi hai.”
The appellant would read this resolution to say that it would be retrospective in nature and would entitle him to claim the salary for the extra work done even prior to passing of the resolution. The respondent-Municipal Committee, however, would dispute this fact and would say that this resolution is prospective in nature and accordingly has been so interpreted rightly by the First Appellate Court. The question of law thus would arise in this case to see if the resolution as reproduced above can be said to be prospective or retrospective in nature.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2310 of 1986
2
Appellant, Dr. Satya Nand was appointed as Assistant Medical Health Officer with defendant-Committee. He was specialist in skin diseases and besides normal duties to work as Skin and VD Specialist and was given a dual charge as Incharge of Registrar of Births & Deaths, over and above his work. The appellant claims that he was given assurance that he would be paid extra allowance for this work which he was required to do. The plaintiff made several representations for grant of extra allowances for additional duties performed by him and finally made an application in this regard on 16.11.1970 asking for being paid allowances of Rs. 200/- per mensem on the plea that he was holding 2 posts as mentioned above. After going through various recommendatory process, this application of the appellant was finally allowed by the Committee on 24.7.1971 by passing a resolution as noted above. Still, the payment was not released. The appellant then filed this suit, claiming additional allowance from 3.11.1966 to 6.12.1972 which worked out to be sum of Rs. 14,600/- at the rate of Rs.200/- per mensem.
In response to the suit filed, the Municipal Committee appeared and filed reply on 2.11.1973, admitting the claim of the appellant. However, they relied upon the report of the Auditor in not paying the amount. The appellate Court interpreted the resolution noted above to be retrospective in nature and accordingly allowed the entire claim made in the suit. The objection in regard to the suit being barred by limitation was not accepted, as it was found that the right to sue accrued only on the basis of passing of the resolution and hence the suit could be filed within 3 years from this date.
The First Appellate Court, however, interpreted the
Regular Second Appeal No. 2310 of 1986 3
resolution differently to say that it is prospective in nature and accordingly reversed the finding of the trial Court to allow the claim from 16.11.1970 to 08.09.1972. The appellant, therefore, has filed this present Regular Second Appeal.
The First Appellate Court has given plain and grammatical meaning to the language or the words used in the resolution to say that it cannot be read to be retrospective in nature. I am inclined to accept the interpretation assigned by the First Appellate Court to the wording of the resolution, simply on the ground if intention was to make it retrospective, the Committee could have mentioned it so in the resolution itself. The way the resolution has been worded would only mean that sanction was granted from the date the resolution was passed. The interpretation of this resolution in the manner to assign it a different meaning to give it a retrospective effect, in my view is not a substantial question of law which would call for decision in the Regular Second Appeal. It is only claim of money which has been decided on the basis of resolution passed by the Municipal committee and thus I am not inclined to interfere in this Regular Second Appeal at this belated stage.
Dismissed.
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDG
March 12, 2010 rts
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee granting an additional duty allowance was retrospective or prospective in nature.
Dr. Satya Nand
Municipal Committee, Amritsar
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
