RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 117 GUJARMAL GUJARMAL GUJARMAL GUJARMAL Vs Vs Vs Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. R.P.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The convenience, the parties are being referred to [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as the at the instance of plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jind, referred as the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS:::: [3]. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was working in Irrigation Department as Nehri RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.1735 1735 1735 1735 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.P.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant/plaintiff is in appeal convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court at the instance of plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jind, ““““Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court””””)))) dismissing the suit for declaration filed plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was working in Irrigation Department as Nehri IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 1735 1735 1735 1735 of of of of 2008 2008 2008 2008 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 22221111.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 …… …… …… ……Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant(s) (s) (s) (s) ............Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Mr. R.P.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. in appeal before this Court. For the sake of as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jind First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court””””), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jind, (hereinafter to be dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was working in Irrigation Department as Nehri 1 . For the sake of as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jind ereby an appeal filed at the instance of plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 (hereinafter to be by the plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the plaintiff with the averments that he was working in Irrigation Department as Nehri MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) Patwari/Patwari (Canals) since 01.07.1961 and promoted to Assistant Revenue Clerk on 05.06.1976 and plaintiff was paid scale as well as increments from time to time on the post of Ziledar (stop gap). Plaintiff stood retired from the service of Ziledar on 30.06.1996. On 01.04.1979, the senior most Z selection grade of 20% on account of revision of scale by the defendants, however, the plaintiff was not granted selection grade whereas his juniors were granted the said benefit. The plaintiff appeared and cleared the d 30.12.1981, thus became entitled for confirmation to the post of Ziledar. Plaintiff made specific request for consideration of his case but no action was taken by the defendants. Ultimately, defendants passed order thereby reject plaintiff without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Juniors to the plaintiff were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring the plaintiff without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural ju Hence the suit was filed. [4]. Upon notice, respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statement while submitting that the plaintiff was promoted as Ziledar on stop gap arrangement as he was not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the po It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a regular and confirmed Ziledar, therefore, he was rightly declined the selection grade admissible to the 20% quota of Ziledar posts. Passing of departmental examination by the plaintiff was not cons his confirmation as Ziledar as he was promoted on stop gap arrangement. Therefore, it was prayed that suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication while controverting the allegations of assertions made in the plaint. RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) Patwari/Patwari (Canals) since 01.07.1961 and promoted to Assistant Revenue Clerk on 05.06.1976 and Ziledar (stop gap) from 07.02.1980. During the service, plaintiff was paid scale as well as increments from time to time on the post of Ziledar (stop gap). Plaintiff stood retired from the service of Ziledar on 30.06.1996. On 01.04.1979, the senior most Z selection grade of 20% on account of revision of scale by the defendants, however, the plaintiff was not granted selection grade whereas his juniors were granted the said benefit. The plaintiff appeared and cleared the d 30.12.1981, thus became entitled for confirmation to the post of Ziledar. Plaintiff made specific request for consideration of his case but no action was taken by the defendants. Ultimately, defendants passed order thereby reject plaintiff without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Juniors to the plaintiff were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring the plaintiff without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural ju Hence the suit was filed. Upon notice, respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statement while submitting that the plaintiff was promoted as Ziledar on stop gap arrangement as he was not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the po It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a regular and confirmed Ziledar, therefore, declined the selection grade admissible to the 20% quota of Ziledar . Passing of departmental examination by the plaintiff was not cons his confirmation as Ziledar as he was promoted on stop gap arrangement. Therefore, it was prayed that suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication while controverting the allegations of the respondents/defendants and ions made in the plaint. Patwari/Patwari (Canals) since 01.07.1961 and promoted to Assistant Revenue Ziledar (stop gap) from 07.02.1980. During the service, plaintiff was paid scale as well as increments from time to time on the post of Ziledar (stop gap). Plaintiff stood retired from the service of Ziledar on 30.06.1996. On 01.04.1979, the senior most Ziledars were granted the benefit of selection grade of 20% on account of revision of scale by the defendants, however, the plaintiff was not granted selection grade whereas his juniors were granted the said benefit. The plaintiff appeared and cleared the departmental examination on 30.12.1981, thus became entitled for confirmation to the post of Ziledar. Plaintiff made specific request for consideration of his case but no action was taken by the defendants. Ultimately, defendants passed order thereby rejecting the claim of the plaintiff without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Juniors to the plaintiff were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring the plaintiff without following proper procedure and against the principles of natural justice. Upon notice, respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statement while submitting that the plaintiff was promoted as Ziledar on stop gap arrangement as he was not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the post of Ziledar. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a regular and confirmed Ziledar, therefore, declined the selection grade admissible to the 20% quota of Ziledar . Passing of departmental examination by the plaintiff was not considered for his confirmation as Ziledar as he was promoted on stop gap arrangement. Therefore, it was prayed that suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication while the respondents/defendants and reiterating the 2 Patwari/Patwari (Canals) since 01.07.1961 and promoted to Assistant Revenue Ziledar (stop gap) from 07.02.1980. During the service, plaintiff was paid scale as well as increments from time to time on the post of Ziledar (stop gap). Plaintiff stood retired from the service of Ziledar on iledars were granted the benefit of selection grade of 20% on account of revision of scale by the defendants, however, the plaintiff was not granted selection grade whereas his juniors were granted the epartmental examination on 30.12.1981, thus became entitled for confirmation to the post of Ziledar. Plaintiff made specific request for consideration of his case but no action was taken by the ing the claim of the plaintiff without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Juniors to the plaintiff were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring the plaintiff stice. Upon notice, respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statement while submitting that the plaintiff was promoted as Ziledar on stop gap st of Ziledar. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a regular and confirmed Ziledar, therefore, declined the selection grade admissible to the 20% quota of Ziledar idered for his confirmation as Ziledar as he was promoted on stop gap arrangement. Therefore, it was prayed that suit be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication while reiterating the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. [6]. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 20.11.2003, dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of plaintiff. [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated learned First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT [8]. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the both the Courts below erred having ignored the fact that vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) passed by the Hon’ble relax provisions of Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Zilladars State Service, Class III, Rules 1955 (hereinafter to the referred as were granted exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years provided under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for the purpose of appointment as Ziledar. submits that the appellant/plaintiff, who was appointed as Ziledar on a tempor stop-gap basis on 07.02.1980 and retired on 30.06.1996, was equally entitled to be granted the same benefit of exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years for the post of Ziledar. RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the confirmation against the post of Ziledar, w.e.f. 31.12.19981 (later modified as 31.12.1981) and is entitled to the higher grade, as alleged? OPP. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on all the benefits? OPP Relief.” The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 20.11.2003, dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated ed First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S):::: ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT----PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the both the Courts below erred having ignored the fact that vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) passed by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana, who was pleased to relax provisions of Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Zilladars State Service, Class III, Rules 1955 (hereinafter to the referred as ‘the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’ were granted exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years provided under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for the purpose of appointment as Ziledar. submits that the appellant/plaintiff, who was appointed as Ziledar on a tempor gap basis on 07.02.1980 and retired on 30.06.1996, was equally entitled to be granted the same benefit of exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years for the post of Ziledar. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the confirmation against the post of Ziledar, w.e.f. 31.12.19981 (later modified as 12.1981) and is entitled to the higher grade, as alleged? OPP. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on all the benefits? OPP The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003, dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, which was also dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by the ed First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF:::: Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the both the Courts below erred having ignored the fact that vide order dated 10.09.1997 Governor of Haryana, who was pleased to relax provisions of Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Zilladars State Service, Class III, Rules 1955 the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’ the 1955 Rules’),,,, 23 persons working as Ziledars were granted exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years provided under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for the purpose of appointment as Ziledar. He thus submits that the appellant/plaintiff, who was appointed as Ziledar on a temporary, gap basis on 07.02.1980 and retired on 30.06.1996, was equally entitled to be granted the same benefit of exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years for 3 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the confirmation against the post of Ziledar, w.e.f. 31.12.19981 (later modified as 12.1981) and is entitled to the higher grade, as alleged? OPP. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on all the benefits? OPP and decree dated which was also passed by the Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the both the Courts below erred having ignored the fact that vide order dated 10.09.1997 Governor of Haryana, who was pleased to relax provisions of Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Zilladars State Service, Class III, Rules 1955 orking as Ziledars were granted exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years provided under He thus ary, gap basis on 07.02.1980 and retired on 30.06.1996, was equally entitled to be granted the same benefit of exemption from the maximum age limit of 35 years for MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) [8.1]. Learned counsel further submits that by granting the bene relaxation in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, his services were required to be regularized as Ziledar followed by release of other service benefits including selection grade and also the revised fixat benefits. He thus, submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the present appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was to be decreed. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) [9]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Learned State counsel also points out that the case of the appellant/plaintiff was not on parity with those, who were granted exemption in terms of the Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the 1955 Rules by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) as the appellant-plaintiff stood who were given the benefit of relaxation vide order dated 10.09.1997 were still in service. [9.1]. Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant/plaintiff and those granted exemption vid placed and did not form one class; as such there was nothing on record to establish any kind of discrimination with the appellant/plaintiff by the respondents/defendants. The suit filed by him was rightly Courts below and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) Learned counsel further submits that by granting the bene relaxation in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, his services were required to be regularized as Ziledar followed by release of other service benefits including selection grade and also the revised fixat benefits. He thus, submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the present appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was to be decreed. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)----DE DE DE DEFENDANT(S) FENDANT(S) FENDANT(S) FENDANT(S) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Learned State counsel also points out that ase of the appellant/plaintiff was not on parity with those, who were granted exemption in terms of the Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the 1955 Rules by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) as the plaintiff stood retired on 30.06.1996, whereas the employees/Ziledars, who were given the benefit of relaxation vide order dated 10.09.1997 were still in Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant/plaintiff and those granted exemption vide dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) were not identically placed and did not form one class; as such there was nothing on record to establish any kind of discrimination with the appellant/plaintiff by the respondents/defendants. The suit filed by him was rightly Courts below and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. Learned counsel further submits that by granting the benefit of similar relaxation in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, his services were required to be regularized as Ziledar followed by release of other service benefits including selection grade and also the revised fixation of retiral benefits. He thus, submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the present appeal filed by the FENDANT(S) FENDANT(S) FENDANT(S) FENDANT(S):::: On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Learned State counsel also points out that ase of the appellant/plaintiff was not on parity with those, who were granted exemption in terms of the Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the 1955 Rules by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) as the retired on 30.06.1996, whereas the employees/Ziledars, who were given the benefit of relaxation vide order dated 10.09.1997 were still in Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant/plaintiff and e dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) were not identically placed and did not form one class; as such there was nothing on record to establish any kind of discrimination with the appellant/plaintiff by the respondents/defendants. The suit filed by him was rightly declined by the learned Courts below and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4 fit of similar relaxation in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, his services were required to be regularized as Ziledar followed by release of other ion of retiral benefits. He thus, submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the present appeal filed by the On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Learned State counsel also points out that ase of the appellant/plaintiff was not on parity with those, who were granted exemption in terms of the Rules 5(1)(b) and 10(b)(ii) of the 1955 Rules by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) as the retired on 30.06.1996, whereas the employees/Ziledars, who were given the benefit of relaxation vide order dated 10.09.1997 were still in Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant/plaintiff and e dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G) were not identically placed and did not form one class; as such there was nothing on record to establish any kind of discrimination with the appellant/plaintiff by the declined by the learned MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: [10]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. [11]. A perusal of the records shows that in the present case, the appellant/plaintiff joined the Irrigation Department as Patwari (Canals) on 01.07.1961 and was promoted as Assistant Thereafter on 07.02.1980, appellant/plaintiff was made Ziledar on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement. On 30.12.1981, the appellant departmental revenue examination on the post of Ziledar and worked on post till the date of his superannuation on 30.06.1996. The grouse of the appellant/plaintiff is that despite having worked as Ziledar on temporary basis for the period of 16 years, his services were never regularized on the said post and he was, thus denied the benefit of selection grade. The employees junior to the appellant/plaintiff were granted the benefit w.e.f. 01.04.1979. [12]. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the essential qualification as pointed out by the appointment to the post of Ziledar. The same is extracted hereunder: “i) ii) iii) iv) [13]. From the records, it can be discerned that there is no dispute regarding the appellant/plaintiff's fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Ziledar; the primary objection raised at the hands of the respondents/defendant RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. A perusal of the records shows that in the present case, the appellant/plaintiff joined the Irrigation Department as Patwari (Canals) on 01.07.1961 and was promoted as Assistant Thereafter on 07.02.1980, appellant/plaintiff was made Ziledar on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement. On 30.12.1981, the appellant departmental revenue examination on the post of Ziledar and worked on post till the date of his superannuation on 30.06.1996. The grouse of the appellant/plaintiff is that despite having worked as Ziledar on temporary basis for the period of 16 years, his services were never regularized on the said post and he thus denied the benefit of selection grade. The employees junior to the appellant/plaintiff were granted the benefit w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the essential qualification as pointed out by the appointment to the post of Ziledar. The same is extracted hereunder: He should be an intermediate; He should not be more than 35 years of age; He should have three years experience as revenue clerk; a He should have revenue training of four months.” From the records, it can be discerned that there is no dispute regarding the appellant/plaintiff's fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Ziledar; the primary objection raised at the hands of the respondents/defendants was to the effect that as on 07.02.1980, the plaintiff was I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made A perusal of the records shows that in the present case, the appellant/plaintiff joined the Irrigation Department as Patwari (Canals) on 01.07.1961 and was promoted as Assistant Revenue Clerk on 05.06.1976. Thereafter on 07.02.1980, appellant/plaintiff was made Ziledar on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement. On 30.12.1981, the appellant-plaintiff passed the departmental revenue examination on the post of Ziledar and worked on the said post till the date of his superannuation on 30.06.1996. The grouse of the appellant/plaintiff is that despite having worked as Ziledar on temporary basis for the period of 16 years, his services were never regularized on the said post and he thus denied the benefit of selection grade. The employees junior to the appellant/plaintiff were granted the benefit w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the learned First Appellate Court for appointment to the post of Ziledar. The same is extracted hereunder:- He should be an intermediate; He should not be more than 35 years of age; He should have three years experience as revenue clerk; and, He should have revenue training of four months.” From the records, it can be discerned that there is no dispute regarding the appellant/plaintiff's fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Ziledar; the primary objection raised at the hands of the s was to the effect that as on 07.02.1980, the plaintiff was 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the substance in the submissions made A perusal of the records shows that in the present case, the appellant/plaintiff joined the Irrigation Department as Patwari (Canals) on Revenue Clerk on 05.06.1976. Thereafter on 07.02.1980, appellant/plaintiff was made Ziledar on temporary basis plaintiff passed the the said post till the date of his superannuation on 30.06.1996. The grouse of the appellant/plaintiff is that despite having worked as Ziledar on temporary basis for the period of 16 years, his services were never regularized on the said post and he thus denied the benefit of selection grade. The employees junior to the Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the learned First Appellate Court for nd, From the records, it can be discerned that there is no dispute regarding the appellant/plaintiff's fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Ziledar; the primary objection raised at the hands of the s was to the effect that as on 07.02.1980, the plaintiff was MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) more than 35 years of age and also did not possess the revenue training of four months. It may be noticed here that the learned First Appellate Court in its judgment duly recorded that no revenue appellant/plaintiff was ever arranged by the respondents/defendants and, thus the same could not be considered as a bar for considering the appellant/plaintiff towards promotion to the post of Ziledar on regular b of consideration left before this Court in these facts and circumstances of the present case is, as to whether the appellant/plaintiff who stood retired on 30.06.1996 was also to be treated with those granted exemptions from maximum age limit of 35 years required for the appointment to the post of Ziledar as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules by exercising powers under Rule 20 thereof. [14]. In the humble opinion of this Court, the mere fact exemption from the maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules, by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana in exercise of powers under Rule 20 vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G), were still in service as on the date of that order, whereas the appellant/plaintiff had by then already retired (having retired on 30.06.1996), cannot by itself place him in a different class. Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, which empowers the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana to dispense with or relax the operation of “20. operation of ‘any of these rules, in favour of Members of service causes undue hardship in any particular case, he may by order dispense wit subject to conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) more than 35 years of age and also did not possess the revenue training of four It may be noticed here that the learned First Appellate Court in its judgment duly recorded that no revenue training during the service tenure of the appellant/plaintiff was ever arranged by the respondents/defendants and, thus the same could not be considered as a bar for considering the appellant/plaintiff towards promotion to the post of Ziledar on regular b of consideration left before this Court in these facts and circumstances of the present case is, as to whether the appellant/plaintiff who stood retired on 30.06.1996 was also to be treated with those granted exemptions from maximum age limit of 35 years required for the appointment to the post of Ziledar as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules by exercising powers under Rule 20 thereof. In the humble opinion of this Court, the mere fact exemption from the maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules, by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana in exercise of powers under Rule 20 vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G), were still in service as on the date of that hereas the appellant/plaintiff had by then already retired (having retired on 30.06.1996), cannot by itself place him in a different class. Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, which empowers the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana to dispense with or relax the operation of any of the Rules, is reproduced hereunder: “20. Where the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that relaxation of the operation of ‘any of these rules, in favour of Members of service causes undue hardship in any particular case, he may by order dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” more than 35 years of age and also did not possess the revenue training of four It may be noticed here that the learned First Appellate Court in its training during the service tenure of the appellant/plaintiff was ever arranged by the respondents/defendants and, thus the same could not be considered as a bar for considering the appellant/plaintiff towards promotion to the post of Ziledar on regular basis. Therefore, the only point of consideration left before this Court in these facts and circumstances of the present case is, as to whether the appellant/plaintiff who stood retired on 30.06.1996 was also to be treated with those granted exemptions from maximum age limit of 35 years required for the appointment to the post of Ziledar as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules by exercising powers under In the humble opinion of this Court, the mere fact that those granted exemption from the maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules, by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana in exercise of powers under Rule 20 vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G), were still in service as on the date of that hereas the appellant/plaintiff had by then already retired (having retired on 30.06.1996), cannot by itself place him in a different class. Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, which empowers the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana to dispense with or relax any of the Rules, is reproduced hereunder:- Where the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that relaxation of the operation of ‘any of these rules, in favour of Members of service causes undue hardship in any particular case, he may by order h or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” 6 more than 35 years of age and also did not possess the revenue training of four It may be noticed here that the learned First Appellate Court in its training during the service tenure of the appellant/plaintiff was ever arranged by the respondents/defendants and, thus the same could not be considered as a bar for considering the appellant/plaintiff asis. Therefore, the only point of consideration left before this Court in these facts and circumstances of the present case is, as to whether the appellant/plaintiff who stood retired on the maximum age limit of 35 years required for the appointment to the post of Ziledar as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules by exercising powers under anted exemption from the maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules, by the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana in exercise of powers under Rule 20 vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G), were still in service as on the date of that hereas the appellant/plaintiff had by then already retired (having retired on 30.06.1996), cannot by itself place him in a different class. Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, which empowers the Hon'ble Governor of Haryana to dispense with or relax Where the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that relaxation of the operation of ‘any of these rules, in favour of Members of service causes undue hardship in any particular case, he may by order h or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) [15]. Once the appellant/plaintiff worked as Ziledar as stop gap arrangement for a pe he was entitled for grant of similar exemption as ordered in favour of 23 other identically placed Ziledars, who were granted exemption from maximum age limit of 35 years as prescribed under Rule the post of Ziledar, even though the appellant of grant of exemption in their favour on 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G). the respondents/defendants as Ziledar for a con appellant/plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to the same treatment as accorded to other similarly situated employees. [16]. Furthermore, under Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, the discretion to dispense with the operation of any ru Governor of Haryana, however taking into account the fact that a period of more than 28 years has gone by, the appellant/plaintiff is facing wrath of discrimination, as such in the given facts and circumstances, rathe Governor of Haryana to consider the case of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, under Rule 5(1)(b), as granted vide order dated 10.09.1997 ( extended in favour of the appellant/plaintiff terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of In in favour of the appellant/plaintiff became otherwise eligible for confirmation to the post of Ziledar [17]. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2003 and 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby s aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellant/plaintiff stands RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) Once the appellant/plaintiff worked as Ziledar as stop gap arrangement for a period of more than 16 years with the respondents/defendants, he was entitled for grant of similar exemption as ordered in favour of 23 other identically placed Ziledars, who were granted exemption from maximum age limit of 35 years as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for appointment to the post of Ziledar, even though the appellant-plaintiff stood retired as on the date of grant of exemption in their favour on 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G). the respondents/defendants as Ziledar for a con appellant/plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to the same treatment as accorded to other similarly situated employees. Furthermore, under Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, the discretion to dispense with the operation of any rule needs to be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana, however taking into account the fact that a period of more than 28 years has gone by, the appellant/plaintiff is facing wrath of discrimination, as such in the given facts and circumstances, rathe Governor of Haryana to consider the case of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, the same relaxation from the maximum age limit of 35 years under Rule 5(1)(b), as granted vide order dated 10.09.1997 ( extended in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by applying terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellant/plaintiff w.e.f. 30.12.1981, being the date on which he became otherwise eligible for confirmation to the post of Ziledar As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2003 and 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby s aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellant/plaintiff stands Once the appellant/plaintiff worked as Ziledar as stop gap riod of more than 16 years with the respondents/defendants, he was entitled for grant of similar exemption as ordered in favour of 23 other identically placed Ziledars, who were granted exemption from maximum age limit 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for appointment to plaintiff stood retired as on the date of grant of exemption in their favour on 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G). Having served the respondents/defendants as Ziledar for a considerable length of time, the appellant/plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to the same treatment as accorded to Furthermore, under Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, the discretion to le needs to be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana, however taking into account the fact that a period of more than 28 years has gone by, the appellant/plaintiff is facing wrath of discrimination, as such in the given facts and circumstances, rather than requesting the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana to consider the case of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule the same relaxation from the maximum age limit of 35 years under Rule 5(1)(b), as granted vide order dated 10.09.1997 (Ex.PW2/G), is by applying the principles of parity in dia and the said exemption to operate 30.12.1981, being the date on which he became otherwise eligible for confirmation to the post of Ziledar. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2003 and 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby s aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellant/plaintiff stands 7 Once the appellant/plaintiff worked as Ziledar as stop gap riod of more than 16 years with the respondents/defendants, he was entitled for grant of similar exemption as ordered in favour of 23 other identically placed Ziledars, who were granted exemption from maximum age limit 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Rules for appointment to plaintiff stood retired as on the date Having served siderable length of time, the appellant/plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to the same treatment as accorded to Furthermore, under Rule 20 of the 1955 Rules, the discretion to le needs to be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana, however taking into account the fact that a period of more than 28 years has gone by, the appellant/plaintiff is facing wrath of discrimination, r than requesting the Hon’ble Governor of Haryana to consider the case of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Rule the same relaxation from the maximum age limit of 35 years Ex.PW2/G), is the principles of parity in the said exemption to operate 30.12.1981, being the date on which he As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2003 and 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of appellant/plaintiff stands MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, benefits towards seniority as per selection grade w.e.f. 30.12.1981 when The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues payable to him till the date of disbursal [18]. Appeal stan application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July July July July 21 21 21 21, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No.1735 of 2008 (O&M) decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, benefits towards seniority as per selection 30.12.1981 when he cleared the departmental revenue examination. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues till the date of disbursal. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, benefits towards seniority as per selection he cleared the departmental revenue examination. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues . Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. ds allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, benefits towards seniority as per selection he cleared the departmental revenue examination. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues ds allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.31 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment