-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2296 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20 th APRIL, 2011 Municipal Counsel, Hisar .... Appellant Versus Badlu Ram & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1- Municipal Council, Hisar, having lost in both the courts below, is in second appeal. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Badlu Ram retired from the service of defendant No.1-appellant on 31.12.2002. Pensionary benefit was not granted to him necessitating the filing of the instant suit on 09.04.2003. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the plaintiff to be entitled to pensionary benefits along with interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by defendant No.1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that pension has since -2- been released to the plaintiff and the only dispute is relating to interest which has been directed to be paid to the plaintiff. It is contended that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. I have carefully considered the contention but find no merit therein. Learned counsel for the appellant states that pension has been released to the plaintiff in February, 2011 i.e. more than 8 years after his retirement. There is no reason why the plaintiff should not be held entitled to interest for the interregnum. In fact, the trial court has granted interest at very modest rate of 6% per annum only. The said interest cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. On the other hand, in view of long period taken by defendant No.1-appellant in releasing pension, the interest has been rightly granted to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that gratuity was paid to the plaintiff soon after his retirement. However, there is no such plea in the written statement. The contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, if payment of pension has been delayed, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the pension amount. Alleged payment of gratuity has nothing to do with the same. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. In fact, the appeal is completely frivolous. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 20th April, 2011 'raj'