Regular Second Appeal No. 3908 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3908 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.3.2009 *** Sarup Singh. .. Appellant VS. Guru Nanak Khalsa College & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal, the plaintiff- appellant is questioning the legality and impropriety of judgment and decree dated 29.3.2008 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below by dint of which the appeal filed by respondent-defendant has been partly accepted and the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006 passed by the learned trial court, decreeing the suit, has been modified. The facts necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of arrears of salary for the months of December 2003 @ Rs.17293/- and for the period January 2004 to June 2004 @ Rs.17,760/- per month along with interest @ 12%, which according to him were wrongly with-held by the defendant College. The stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was only of denial and non-maintainability of the suit. They took the stand during the arguments that the plaintiff was paid the salary for the period December 2003 and January 2004 after deducting the recovery of shortcoming of Rs.35077/-, as pointed out by the audit party, while the salary for the period 5.4.2004 till 23.6.2004, the date of his retirement amounting to Rs.37,266/- was paid to him and with regard to the salary for the period 1.2.2004 to 4.4.2004, it was averred that the same was not released to the plaintiff on Regular Second Appeal No. 3908 of 2008 2 account of his absence and as such nothing remained due towards the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence and Calendar , governing the service conditions of the employees of the College, held that the said deductions and with-holding of pay for the months of February to 4.4.2004 was illegal and prior thereto no procedure whatsoever was followed and thus, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.72528/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the salary becomes due till the decision of the suit and future interest @ 6% per annum was awarded. Further, the plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @ 6% for two months on delayed payment of Rs.37266/-. Aggrieved with the same the College preferred an appeal, which, has been partly accepted by holding and modifying the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled to the salary amounting to Rs.38588/- for the period February 2004 to 4.4.2004, on which he remained willfully absent. It emerges out from the record that the petitioner was sanctioned leave for the months of December 2003 and January 2004, but his application for extension of leave was declined and he was asked to join the duties but he did not report on his duties, leading to the passing of order dated 13.2.2004, retiring the plaintiff compulsorily. The plaintiff preferred Civil Writ Petition before this Court wherein stay order was passed and as a consequence thereof the plaintiff joined his duties on 5.4.2004 and stood retired on 23.6.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly the petition challenging his compulsorily retirement was dismissed being infructuous as the appellant stood retired during pendency of the same and the said order relieving him of his duties compulsorily was not set aside. The appellant over-stayed his leave and admittedly did not do any work till 4.4.2004. All these factors led the learned First Appellate Court to conclude that on the basis of principle of no pay no work, the plaintiff is not entitled to the salary for the said period and accordingly modified the judgment of the learned trial court. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Appellate Court below is either illegal or perverse. It is well settled that this Court cannot, on re- appreciation of evidence, record a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Courts below and the learned Lower Appellate Court is Regular Second Appeal No. 3908 of 2008 3 considered to be the best judge of the facts as well as law. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 20,2009 Jiten