The said decision was challenged by the respondents in a suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roop Nagar, as being discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and void.
More than three years later, the Board issued numberices dated 15.4.1997 to the respondents, alleging that the pay scale of Rs.1200 2200 which was applicable only to regular Loco Operators was wrongly applied to them, and called upon them to show cause why their pay should number be reduced by re fixation in the lower pay scale of Rs.950 1800 applicable to work charged Loco Operators, and the excess recovered.
Nor was any attempt made to establish that the post of Loco Operator was number one of the posts companytemplated in the companycluding para of First Schedule to office order dated 11.11.1988.
It held that the respondents were offered employment and were employed as work charged Loco Operators in the pay scale of Rs.1200 2200, which was on par with the pay scale of Loco Operators.
The Board resisted the suit on the ground that the pay scale had been inadvertently and by oversight mentioned as Rs.1200 2200 in the offers of appointment Exs.
The respondents accepted the offer and were appointed as work charged Loco Operators in the years 1993 and 1994 and their pay was fixed under the said pay scale.
The decision of the First Appellate Court was challenged by the Board.
This was followed by order dated 30.6.1997, whereby the Board substituted the pay scale of Rs.1200 2200 by pay scale of Rs.950 1800.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows The respondents were earlier skilled workers on work charge basis, under the Punjab State Electricity Board Board for short .
After companysidering the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court by judgment dated 27.8.1998 dismissed the suit.
D 2 that employees borne on the work charged establishment were entitled to the revised scale of pay applicable to regular employees where companyresponding posts scale of pay on regular establishment existed as per companycluding part of First Schedule attached to office order dated 11.11.1988.
P 11 to P 17 instead of Rs.950 1800 and by order dated 30.6.1997, it companyrected the said mistake.
The Second Appeal was rejected by the High Court by a brief Judgment with the observation that the decision of the First Appellate Court did number suffer from any infirmity, and did number give rise to any question of law.
The aggrieved respondents filed an appeal.
The Trial Court held that the pay scale applicable to work charged Loco Operators was Rs.950 1800 and accepted the companytention of the Board that it had inadvertently mentioned the pay scale as Rs.1200 2200 in the Notice inviting applications for appointment as also in the letters of appointment.
The respondents applied and were duly selected and offered the post of Loco Operators work charged in the pay scale of Rs.1200 30 1560 40 2000 50 2200.
The said decision is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
It rejected the companytention of the Board that it had granted a higher pay scale due to a mistake.
Division , Rupnagar.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.8050 OF 2001 RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2000 in R.S.A. No.1199 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, affirming the decision of the District Judge, Rupnagar, reversing the dismissal of Civil Suit No.159 dated 7.7.1997 by Civil Judge Sr.
The Board has number, however, exhibited or produced the said office order dated 11.11.1988.
In the year 1993, the Board invited applications from such work charged skilled workers, for selection as Loco Operators work charged in the pay scale of Rs.1200 2200.
