Ram Dass (Dead), Through Lrs. Vs. State of H.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the court covering all the issues framed in the suit.surjit singh, j.1. petitioner has sought judicial review of order, dated 21st september, 2000, whereby transfer application no. 503 of 1986, which was, in fact, an appeal initially filed in the district court against the decree of a sub judge and then transferred to the tribunal, has been allowed and subordinate judge's decree, which was passed in favour of the present petitioner set aside. 2. during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner ram dass expired and he is now represented by his legal representatives. 3. petitioner had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to pay-scale of rs. 700-1100, with effect from 1st november, 1966, and sought a direction to the state of himachal pradesh to pay him the salary in the aforesaid pay- scale from the aforesaid date. this direction was sought by way of mandatory injunction. 4. facts, which were pleaded in the suit, may be summed up thus. petitioner joined service, in the year 1947, as trained graduate teacher, in a district board school of erstwhile punjab state. in the year 1957, district board schools were taken over by the punjab government and the trained graduate teachers, working in those schools, became the employees of punjab government and a separate cadre, known as provincialized cadre, was brought into being for those teachers. in the year 1966, when erstwhile state of punjab was reorganized and some areas of that state came to be allotted to union territory of himachal pradesh, services of the petitioner were allocated to union territory of himachal pradesh. petitioner, thus, became an employee of government of himachal pradesh. himachal pradesh government also maintained the separate entity of provincialized cadre and a separate seniority list was prepared, in respect of the trained graduate teachers and headmasters, who were members of that provincialized cadre. it may be noted that in the year 1966, the petitioner was working as head master, on account of his promotion, when his services were allocated to himachal pradesh. 5. pay-scales of gazetted class-ii members of schools 1st and inspection cadre were revised, with effect from november, 1966, as per notification annexure p-2 (dated 30th september, 1970). persons working in schools and inspection cadre were placed in three pay-scales. the same were rs. 7001100, rs. 400-800 and rs. 300-600. 15 per cent personnel were to get the pay-scale of rs. 700-1100, 25 per cent personnel the pay-scale of rs. 400-800 and the remaining 60 per cent the pay- scale of rs. 300-600. these pay-scales were to be granted to the personnel having designations of assistant directors, deo's, dy.deo's, heads of higher secondary schools and training schools, district social education officers and heads of high schools, whose pre-revised scales were rs. 250-750 and rs. 250 350. 6. petitioner was in the pay-scale of rs. 250-350, prior to the revision of the pay-scales. notification annexure p-2 and the detail of revised and old pay-scales, annexed thereto, suggest that a common list of assistant directors, deo's, dy.deo's, heads of higher secondary schools and training schools, district social education officers and heads of high schools was required to be prepared for grant of the aforesaid three revised pay-scales. 7. it appears that a common list was prepared and first 15 per cent personnel, appearing in that list, were granted the pay-scale of rs. 700-1100, next 25 per cent were granted the pay-scale of rs. 400-800 and the remaining 60 per cent were granted the pay-scale of rs. 300-600. petitioner did not fall within the first 15 per cent. he, however, fell within the next 25 per cent personnel in that list and was accordingly granted pay- scale of rs. 400-800. he was not satisfied with the grant of this middle pay-scale. according to him, there should have been a separate list of headmasters of provincialized cadre and the aforesaid three revised pay-scales should have been granted on the basis of that separate list of provincialized headmasters. so, he filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. learned subordinate judge decreed his suit. state went in appeal against that decree. appeal was transferred to the state administrative tribunal, in the year 1986. learned tribunal has set aside the decree of the sub judge and dismissed the suit. 8. petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. according to him, the decision of the tribunal is illegal and contrary to the spirit of notification annexure p-2. 9. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. from a bare reading of annexure p-2 and the detail of pre-revised and revised pay-scales, annexed thereto, it is clear that for the purpose of grant of revised pay-scales, some posts of education department were clubbed as schools and inspection cadre. there were six categories of posts, i.e. assistant directors, deo's, dy.deo's, heads of higher secondary schools and training schools, district social education officers and heads of high schools. 11. before the issuance of annexure p-2, some persons manning these categories were in the pay-scale of rs. 250-750 and some in the pay-scale of rs. 250-350. revised pay-scales for these clubbed categories were rs. 700-1100, rs. 400-800 and rs. 300-600. 15 per cent personnel were to get the pay-scale of rs. 700-1100, 25 per cent the pay-scale of rs. 400-800 and the remaining 60 per cent the pay-scale of rs. 300-600. 12. argument raised by the learned counsel that separate lists were required to be drawn, in respect of the headmasters of state service and the headmasters of provincialized cadre and then the three pay-scales were required to be granted, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that notification annexure p-2, particularly the detail of pay-scales, annexed thereto, clubbed all the six categories for the purpose of grant of the aforesaid three different pay-scales. if the argument advanced by the learned counsel is accepted, that may lead to reduction in pay of some of the persons manning the schools and inspection cadre, who were earlier in the pre- revised scale of rs. 250-750. for example, if there were ten assistant directors in the pay-scale of rs. 250-750 and only 15 per cent of them were to get the revised pay-scale of rs. 7001100, many of them, who might have reached the maximum of the pre-revised pay-scale of rs. 250-750, if placed in some lower scale, would have suffered financial loss. that could not have been the intention of the framers of rules for revised pay- scales. 13. learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the hon'ble supreme court, in support of his contention that there should have been a separate list for the headmasters of provincialized cadre, for the purpose of grant of revised pay-scale. the citation is : air1963sc913 (state of punjab v. joginder singh). in that case, the issue was whether the cadre of provincialized teachers was separate from the cadre of state teachers, and on the basis of the notification of the punjab government, it was held that the state cadre and provincialized cadre were different. even after the reorganization of the erstwhile state of punjab, when some teachers of provincialized cadre came to himachal pradesh, they were recognized as a separate cadre and this cadre remained separate and distinct all through, but only for the reason that provincialized cadre is separate from state cadre, it cannot be said that a separate list is required to be drawn for grant of the revised pay-scales to the members of provincialized cadre, according to the prescribed percentage of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 60 per cent. as a matter of fact, annexure p-2 speaks of six categories of members of schools and inspection cadre (gazetted), irrespective of the cadres. it makes no difference between headmasters of state cadre or headmasters of provincialized cadre. all have been put on par and treated as one category, i.e. heads of high schools, for the purpose of grant of revised pay-scales. in view of the abovestated position, we are of the considered view that there is no scope for interference with the order of the learned tribunal, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. hence, the petition is dismissed.