Regular Second Appeal No. 3585 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3585 of 1986 Date of decision: 05.04.2010 State of Punjab .....Appellant VERSUS Mohan Lal Gupta ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-plaintiff was retired as Teacher. He started drawing pension w.e.f. 01.04.1979 at the rate of Rs. 407/- plus adhoc relief which fluctuated on the basis of price index with the passage of time. Later, the respondent-plaintiff took agency of Post and Telegraph Department as Extra Departmental Agent of village Mandi Kalan for which he started receiving sum of Rs. 214/- per month as allowance. In view of this, Assistant Treasury Officer at Sub Treasury Phul stopped the adhoc relief payable to the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that he had joined the service and this amounted to re- employment. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly was held ineligible to receive the adhoc relief on his pension. A sum of Rs. 4071/- was recovered. This was contested by the appellant and he prayed for Regular Second Appeal No. 3585 of 1986 2 refund of this amount recovered. The respondent also served a notice under Section 80 CPC and subsequently filed a suit for recovery of this amount. The appellant appeared and opposed the prayer made in the suit. It was pleaded that the appellants were fully competent to deduct the adhoc relief payable to the respondent- plaintiff as he had been re-employed. On the basis of pleading of parties, the following issues were framed:- 1)Whether the appointment or the plaintiff as extra- departmental agent amount to re-employment? If so, its effect? OPP. 2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 4071/-? OPP. 3)Relief. Both the courts came to take a view that taking up of an agency did not amount to re-employment and hence the adhoc relief could not have been denied to the respondent-plaintiff. The First Appellate Court formulated the issue to see if taking of agency by respondent-plaintiff could be taken as re-employment. By making reference to the case of R.S. Maniyar Sub Registrar Vs. The State of Mysore, 1967 S.L.R. 823, the words 're-instatement' and 're- employment' have been explained. It is observed that the word 're' when used as prefix normally means again or back again into service. Re-employment can thus be described to mean taken back into service or taken again into service. It would basically depend on the nature of the order and the factual position. Evidence in this case was appreciated to hold that only a consolidated amount was paid Regular Second Appeal No. 3585 of 1986 3 which was only a stationary amount. This could not be termed as re- employment. The Court, accordingly, took a view that the respondent- plaintiff could not be said to have been re-employed. The view taken by the courts below is legal and correct. Nothing substantial is pointed out before me to dispute this position. Mere taking of agency, in my view, would not lead to re-employment for which the respondent-plaintiff could be denied the adhoc relief. The question of law has been rightly considered and decided and would not call for any interference. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. April 05, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE