The Single Judge dismissed an appeal where the appellant University was permitted to ride on a prior judgment granting similar back wage relief to another employee, deeming no substantial question of law arose.
Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arises; dismissed having no merits.
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.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
����������������������� �� �!�������"#��������$�
Date of decision: 5th July, 2013
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another
! Appellants
Versus
Sadhu Ram
! Respondent
����!%�����&�'��!�������������(����(�!��������
Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the applicant*respondent.
��(����(�!�������)����*���'+
CM No.4927*C of 2013
The prayer for early hearing is allowed and the application is disposed of.
With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken on board.
RSA No.2148 of 2009
A suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffrespondent to the effect that he is entitled to payscale of Rs.1200*2040 since March 1986 notionally with back wages in cash for 38 months preceding to the date of filing of the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.05.2007.
2
������������������������� ��������������������
The appeal filed by the appellant*University before the first appellate Court was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2008.
The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant*defendant challenging the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the courts below.
Though the appellant in its grounds of appeal has raised substantial questions of law alleged to be arising in this appeal in para No.25 of the grounds of appeal, yet it may be noticed that at the time of admission of this appeal the questions of law on which the appeal was filed, were not noticed.
The plaintiffrespondent has moved CM No.4927C of 2013 for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the instant appeal is covered in his favour by a judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed in RSA No.789 of 2007 titled as ,� -./ -01�� -0-2���23 ��-01-2-�
�30�4.5�.0-5��2�6708��1)���8-0�6���-08 -2���23 & , which was filed on similar facts, similar questions of law as raised by the appellant* University on similar grounds, and was dismissed. The said judgment has been placed on record as Annexure R*1. A notice of this application was given to the counsel for the appellant.
Though learned counsel for the appellant*University could not dispute the fact that similar relief was granted to a similarly situated employee vide the aforesaid judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed in RSA No.789 of 2007; however an argument has been raised on behalf
3
������������������������� ��������������������
of the appellantUniversity that the plaintiffrespondent is not entitled to the said scale as claimed by him, as he lacks the essential educational qualification as per the Notification dated 23.08.1990, according to which for granting a payscale as claimed by the plaintiff, one should have a minimum qualification of Matric with ITI certificate/Polytechnic whereas according to the appellantUniversity, the plaintiff*respondent is Middle pass and is holding ITI Diploma in Motor Mechanic.
It could not be disputed before this Court that the Notification on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellantUniversity, is not a part of the record of the courts below, as the same was never reliedupon by the appellant*University in the courts below.
In view of the aforesaid fact alone, the argument raised on behalf of the appellant*University is liable to be rejected.
No other point has been raised to distinguish the judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed in RSA No.789 of 2007.
In this view of the matter, it is held that no substantial question of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal, arises in this appeal and thus, the same is dismissed having no merits.
�*��(����(�!�������+� ������
�.51�9)����$� ���
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant University was entitled to resist the decree of back wages despite a similar relief granted in a substantially identical suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
RSA No.789 of 2007Followed¶22
RSA No.789 of 2007
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University
Sadhu Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
