RSA No.3452 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3452 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 5, 2011 Shakuntala Devi .....Appellant v. M.S.Saraswati Sr.Secondary School, Rohtak and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9665-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.9663-C of 2011 In view of the fact that deficiency in court fee has already been made good, the present application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.9664-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3452 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 21.2.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, partly allowing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 7.11.2009 passed by learned Civil RSA No.3452 of 2011(O&M) -2- Judge, (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which suit filed by present appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff had joined respondent- defendant no.1-School as a teacher on 4.4.1994 and remained in service of the school till 22.5.2003. It is a private institution. The present suit has been filed for recovery of alleged arrears of salary and amount of contributory provident fund (for short `CPF'), which according to appellant- plaintiff was not deposited by respondent -defendant no.1. She has claimed arrears of salary from February 2003 till 22.5.2003, i.e., the date when she left the school. She has filed the suit for recovery of `37,400/-. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants appeared and took the plea that appellant-plaintiff joined the school in April 1988 and not on 4.4.1994. Further plea has been taken that she left the school of her own as she did not come present on 23.5.2003 and thereafter it was only on 1.7.2003 that she informed the school on telephone that she was unable to attend the school. Specific plea has been taken that her salary was only `1025/- per month when she left the school and `123/- used to be deducted from her salary as CPF and that only remuneration for performing the examination duties of National Open School in July 2003 left to be paid to the appellant-plaintiff, which she has not collected from the school despite repeated requests. On appreciation of evidence suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. However, appeal filed against the said RSA No.3452 of 2011(O&M) -3- judgment and decree was partly allowed by learned first appellate Court and the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was decreed for `800/- only, i.e., remuneration for examination duties. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of misreading and misappreciation of evidence by both the Courts below as salary of a teacher could not be of `1025/- per month. It is also contended that the amount of CPF, which was alleged to be deposited, has not been deposited by respondents-defendants. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. No evidence has been adduced by appellant- plaintiff except her own statement and statement of a witness, namely, Sushma Arora, PW2, i.e., a fellow teacher in respondent-defendant's school. However, case of appellant-plaintiff has been demolished by deposition of PW2-Suhsma Arora. She has stated that salary of appellant-plaintiff was `1025/- per month, when she left the school. She also stated that she left the school by her own will on 1.7.2003. She also stated that amount of CPF deducted from her salary was also correct and nothing was with-held by the School and no arrears is to be paid by the school to the appellant-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this RSA No.3452 of 2011(O&M) -4- second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge