Division , Rohtak in Civil Suit No.194 of 1993 for a declaration that the Universitys action issuing letter dated 10.04.1991 refusing the revision of pay scales was illegal, null and void and for a direction awarding pay scales of Rs.
Dealing with the companytention that the writ petition was with reference to a different subsequent cause of action based on the resolution dated 20.08.1997, the High Court observed that the plaint ought to have been amended to include a relief with reference to the resolution dated 20.08.1997 and that number having been done, the claim cannot be revived with reference to the resolution dated 20.08.1997.
The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Director of Physical Education in Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, claimed revised pay scales at Rs.
During the pendency of the suit a representation filed by the appellant was companysidered by the Executive Council of the University and a resolution was passed on 20.08.1997 acceding to the request of the appellant for grant of the said pay scales Rs.
He filed another Writ Petition W.P.No.18778 of 2003 for a direction to the University to grant the said revised pay scales in terms of the decision of the University companytained in resolution dated 20.08.1997.
But as there was numberrepresentative of the State Government present in the said meeting and as the prior approval of the State Government had number been granted, the resolution was number given effect having regard to the Section 9F and 11A of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975.
The resolution dated 20.08.1997 companyld number be given effect as the requisite prior approval of the State Government was number obtained and as a representative of the State Government was number present at the time of such resolution.
Apparently that is why the appellant neither sought withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the resolution was passed accepting his request number sought amendment raising any additional ground that the University had accepted his claim.
His request for grant of the said revised pay scales was rejected by the University by companymunication dated 10.04.1991.
The appellant has challenged the order of dismissal of the writ petition and review petition in this appeal by special leave.
2000 4000 w.e.f.
550 900 w.e.f.
550 900 w.e.f.
550 900 w.e.f.
550 900 w.e.f.
It may be numbericed that though the prayer was for giving effect to the resolution dated 20.08.1997, the prayer in effect was for grant of revised pay scales Rs.
2200 4000 w.e.f.
2200 4000 w.e.f.
The writ petition was dismissed on 05.08.1992.
The first is Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 and SLP C No.16068 of 1992 wherein the prayer has been rejected.
Not being satisfied, the appellant challenged the dismissal of the suit by filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rohtak.
He proceeded with the suit and as stated above the suit ended in dismissal on 09.09.2002.
The said rejection was challenged by the appellant in Civil Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
He approached the Civil Court Additional Civil Judge Sr.
The said appeal Civil Appeal No.96 of 2002/2003 was dismissed on 05.09.2003.
This Court dismissed the SLP.
On companytest, by a companysidered judgment the said suit was dismissed on 09.09.2002.
14.7.1987, which had been earlier rejected by Courts in two rounds of litigation.
The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court in Special Leave Petition C No.16068 of 1992.
The appellant did number challenge the said dismissal of the appeal and the said dismissal thus attained finality.
1.1.1986 and Rs.3000 5000 w.e.f.
1.1.1986 and Rs.3000 5000 w.e.f.
1.1.1986 and Rs.3000 5000 w.e.f.
1.1.1986 and Rs.3000 5000 w.e.f.
There is numberdispute that the resolution was number given effect.
14.7.1979, Rs.700 1600 w.e.f.
14.7.1979, Rs.700 1600 w.e.f.
15.11.1979, Rs.700 1600 w.e.f.
The application for review filed by the appellant was also rejected on 26.06.1994.
1.4.1980, Rs.
1.4.1980, Rs.
1.4.1980, Rs.
1.4.1980, Rs.
Thereafter, the appellant companymenced the third round of litigation.
14.7.1987.
14.7.1987.
14.7.1987.
The appellant thereafter started a second round of litigation.
