STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus BALKARAN SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 18-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
v. 
BALKARAN SINGH 
OCTOBER 18, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Pay scale-Revision of-Appointment/Promotion of plaintiffs as 
C Agricultural Officer Class I on a scale of Rs.400-1250-Posted as Deputy 
Directors-Pay scale of Class I Officer enhanced to Rs.940-1850-Pay scale 
of Deputy Director revised to Rs.1200-1850-0rder of endorsement by 
Director of Agriculture that plaintiffs were entitled to only Rs. 940-1850-
Challenge against -Held: Post of Deputy Director is not a promotional post 
D and was inter changeable-Plaintiffs remained Class I officers, and therefore, 
were only entitled to Rs. 9./0-1850-Fact that another officer was allowed 
pay scale of Rs.1200-1850 in a civil suit would not entitle plaintiffs to the 
higher pay scale moreso when that suit was not a representative suit-
Decree passed wrongly in favour of one, would not mean that all others be 
given same relief when they were not so entitled as per rules-Punjab 
E Agricultural Service Rules, 1974--Rule 11. 
F 
Seniority list published in 1980 and in 1984-Suit filed in 1993 for 
seeking entitlement to seniority-Maintainability of-Held, Not maintainable 
being time-barred-Suit also barred by acquiescence and estoppel-No one 
in a service can sleep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years 
and then come to Court seeking a relief and upsetling seniority of number 
of persons-Delay/laches. 
Jurisdiction: 
Jurisdiction of Civil Court-In ma/lers relating to service-Held: Not 
G so wide so as to enable civil court to sit in appeal over the actions of 
authorities. 
limitation Act, 1963: 
H 
298 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALKARAN SINGH 
299 
Article 58-Director made an office order that plaintiffs were entitled A 
to pay scale of Rs.940-1850-Plaintiffs demanded pay scale of Rs.1200-
1850-Suit filed 12 years after office order-Maintainability of-Held, Not 
maintainable being clearly barred by /imitation as right to seek relief of 
declaration accrued to plaintiffs on the date of office order. 
The plaintiff in first suit was working as an officer of the Agricultural B 
Department of the State. He was selected to the post of Deputy Director of 
Agriculture. The appointment order showed that he was appointed to Punjab 
Agricultural Services Class-I temporarily on a scale of Rs.400-1250. The 
pay scales were revised on 1.1.1978. The pay scale of Deputy Director in all 
Services was given as Rs.1200-1850. 
C 
When this decision to revise the pay-scale was brought to the notice of 
the Director of Agriculture, he found that in the Agricultural Department 
there was no post of Deputy Director as such and that the appointment of all 
those working as Deputy Directors was only to Punjab Agricultural Service 
Class-I and that the scale of pay of Class-I officers in the original scale of D 
Rs.400-1250/- had been enhanced to Rs. 940-1850/-. He therefore made an 
endorsement dated 13.3.1980, that the revised scale of pay of Deputy Directors 
in the Agricultural Department, they being officers of Class-I was only 
Rs.940-1850/- and consequently that amount alone was payable. The plaintiff 
was being paid salary only at that scale from 1.1.1978. The plaintiff came to 
Court challenging that order only on 20.12.1993, more than 12 years after E 
the order or endorsement. The case of the plaintiff was that in the case of one 
Mewa Singh, who was also a Deputy Director, the Court had passed a decree 
in the year 1991 declaring him entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1200-1850/-
and hence he is also entitled to the same pay scale. 
The plaintiff in second suit was a class-II officer, promoted as Class-I 
officer on a pay scale of Rs.400-1250 and was posted as Deputy Director, 
Agriculture. He also filed the suit. The prayer in his plaint was identical with 
the one made in the first suit. 
F 
The plaintiff in third suit was recruited as Class-I Officer in Punjab G 
Agriculture Service. He had been placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.940-
1850. He filed suit no.461of1991 challenging the same and claiming that 
he was entitled to arrears of pay at the scale of Rs.1200-1850 and the same 
was decreed in his favour. The said decision had become final. In view of the 
said decision, plaintiff filed suit praying that he is entitled to seniority on the 
basis of higher pay drawn by him as against the officers who were placed in H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A lower pay scale. 
B 
Trial Court p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.