Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2008 Date of Order: 30.10.2008 Managing Committee, D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Karnal. ....Appellant Versus Santosh Kumar Attray and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant, challenges a judgment and decree dated 17.01.2008, passed by the District Judge, Karnal, whereby its appeal was partly allowed. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 retired from service on 31.05.2005. His retiral benefits were released on 02.05.2006 after he served a legal notice dated 17.04.2006. For delayed payment of pension and gratuity, respondent no.1 filed a suit claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.05.2005 to 02.05.2006. Respondent no.1 also prayed that his last drawn pay be fixed at Rs.10,700/- instead of Rs.10,500/- and retiral benefits be calculated accordingly. The appellant contested the suit and in addition to a plea as to the maintainability of the suit, averred that the respondent's pension case was sent to the Commissioner and Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh on 18.03.2005 for sanction and release of pension and gratuity. The Director General raised Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2008 -2- frivolous objections that caused delay and, therefore, the appellant was not liable. Respondents No.2 and 3, namely, the State of Haryana submitted that the appellant forwarded incomplete and unscrutinised pension papers in the month of April, 2005 and it was only after removal of these objections by the appellant, they could issue the sanction orders. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as alleged ?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is hit under the provisions of Order 27 Rule 3 read with Section 79 of CPC as alleged?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action ?OPD 6. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in disbursal of retiral benefits and was, therefore, liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 31.05.2005 to 02.05.2006. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The first appellate Court accepted the appeal in part and held, the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 were jointly liable for the delay. It further held that they would be equally liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant forwarded the pension papers on 18.03.2005, more than two months before the date of retirement. The delay, if any, was on the part of the Government as its Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2008 -3- officers raised frivolous objections and kept the matter pending for one year. It is submitted that the learned courts below committed an error in holding that delay was caused by the appellant or jointly by the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3. Counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that the obligation to ensure that pension is released expeditiously lies upon the appellant. They cannot disavow their liability and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The primary obligation to ensure an expeditious disbursal of pension and gratuity lies upon the employer. Apart from forwarding the case for consideration, the appellant failed to ensure that complete pension papers were forwarded and thereafter failed to ensure expeditious removal of objections. The pension case was forwarded to the District Education Officer, Karnal on 18.03.2005. The case was returned with an objection vide letter dated 24.03.2005. The Director Secondary Education, vide letter dated 31.05.2005 asked the District Education Officer, Karnal to check the salary of respondent no.1 and to find out whether any recovery was due. The Principal, D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Karnal, thereafter sent the case to the District Education Officer on 15.06.2005. The case was received back from the department on 12.08.2005 and this process continued with the retiree waiting for his retiral benefits. It appears that the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 exchanged correspondence and raised objections oblivious of the suffering caused to respondent no.1 In this view of the matter, I find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court holding the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 equally liable and Regular Second Appeal No. 1355 of 2008 -4- apportioning liability equally. As no question of law muchless a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. October 30, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE