R.S.A. No. 4762 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4762 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.05.2011 Raghbir Singh, Pharmacy Preparer, Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy and Stores, Patiala and others .... Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. P.C. Arora, advocate for the appellants Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG Punjab for the respondents L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Raghbir Singh etc. - plaintiffs who were non suited by the trial Court but have partly succeeded in the lower Appellate Court have filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs are working as Pharmacy Preparer under the defendants. Plaintiff No. 4 has since retired. Plaintiffs were treated as Class-III/Group C employees. The plaintiffs claimed that they were wrongly treated as such and infact they are Class IV/Group D employees and are entitled to consequential reliefs and benefits as such. They also claimed interest on the arrears of pecuniary benefits. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that plaintiffs have been rightly treated as Class-III R.S.A. No. 4762 of 2010 2 employees and they have been drawing their salary and other emoluments as such and now they can not claim that they are Class- IV employees. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiffs has been allowed partly by learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2009 and thereby plaintiffs' suit has been decreed partly holding them Class-IV employees and entitled to fixation of pay and other benefits as such. Plaintiffs have filed instant second appeal feeling still aggrieved. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the time of motion hearing, counsel for the appellants canvassed two-fold grievances. It was contended that plaintiff No. 4 was retired at the age of 58 years as Class-III employee during the pendency of the suit but having been held as Class-IV employee his superannuation age was 60 years and, therefore, he is entitled to the service benefits of said period of 2 years. Learned counsel for the respondents states that order has already been passed that plaintiff No. 4 shall be deemed to have retired on 30.6.2009 on attaining the age of 60 years and consequential benefits for the said period of 2 years are being worked out and would be paid to plaintiff No. 4. Consequently the said grievance stands conceded by counsel for the respondents. It was also contended that interest has not been granted to the plaintiffs on the arrears of pecuniary benefits. Learned R.S.A. No. 4762 of 2010 3 counsel for the respondents, however, contended that plaintiffs are not entitled to interest and in any event, interest should not be granted since prior to the date of filing of the suit. I have carefully considered submissions. In my considered opinion, plaintiffs are entitled to interest at reasonable rate of 9% per annum on the arrears of pecuniary benefits and the interest would be admissible since due dates or since 30.4.2003, the date of filing of the suit whichever is later. Plaintiffs are entitled to further relief to this extent. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly. Judgment and decree of lower Appellate Court are modified by holding that plaintiff No. 4 shall be deemed to have retired on 30.6.2009 on attaining the age of 60 years and necessary consequential pecuniary benefits shall be disbursed to him within 6 months from today. In addition to it, all the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to interest on the arrears of pecuniary benefits @ 9% per annum since due dates or since 30.4.2003 the date of filing of the suit whichever is later. These reliefs are in addition to the relief granted by the lower Appellate Court. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (L.N. MITTAL) 25.05.2011 JUDGE reena