RSA No.3402 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3402 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Tirath Ram ......Appellant Versus Punjab State and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.10135 & 10136-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 95 days in refilling and 20 days in filing and the appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. RSA No.3402 of 2008 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the leave encashment at the raised limit to 300 days vide Punjab Govt. Circular bearing No.1/90/98-3FP-11/7219 dated 13.5.1998 with compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment, was dismissed. The appellant, who was an employee of the Punjab Roadways, retired from service on 30.11.2000. In addition to other retiral benefits, he was paid leave encashment for 158 days. The appellant claimed that as per the Govt. rules, he was entitled to leave encashment for 300 days and accordingly, filed the present suit for mandatory injunction directing the RSA No.3402 of 2008 (O&M) 2 defendants to pay leave encashment amount for 300 days. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents mainly on three grounds firstly, that suit for mandatory injunction to pay specific amount was not maintainable, secondly, that the plaintiff had opted for leave as per old leave rules under which he was not entitled to leave encashment for 300 days and thirdly, that only 158 days' earned leave was standing to his credit on the date of his retirement and for that much period, he was paid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 3. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD. 4. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court observed that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable and further that the plaintiff had opted for old rules under which leave encashment for 300 days was not permitted. It was also observed that the plaintiff was not entitled to leave encashment for more than 158 days which was standing to his credit and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have RSA No.3402 of 2008 (O&M) 3 recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant opted for the old leave rules, according to which, he was not entitled to leave encashment for 300 days. It was also found by the Courts below that only 158 days of leave was standing to the credit of the appellant for which he was made the payment and thus, he was not entitled to the claim made. Undisputedly, under the old rules, leave could not accumulate more than 180 days. Moreover, this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dr. Prem Singh Mann 1996(3) PLR 799 has authoritatively laid down that the suit for mandatory injunction for payment of specific amount is not maintainable and the plaintiff was required to file a suit for recovery. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decrees. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. May 11, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE