THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.246 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent was employed as a Teacher in the appellant- school, which was admitted to grant-in- aid. At the end of his career, he was functioning as Head Master. Complaining that his service book was lost, while in the custody of the management, he instituted various proceedings before this Court. Ultimately, he filed O.S.No.80 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla claiming damages of Rs.3,00,000/-. He pleaded that the service book was made to disappear only with a view to cause hardship to him and to delay, if not, deny, the retirement and pensionery benefits. He made extensive reference to the proceedings that have ensued. The suit was contested by the appellant. According to it, the 1st respondent was the custodian of all the records and he manipulated certain records for his own benefit. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 31.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.313 of 2007 in the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed on 18.11.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri P.V.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri M.V.K.Rayudu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The only basis, on which the 1st respondent claimed damages against the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 was that his service book was missing and that in turn resulted in delay in sanction of the retirement benefits and pension. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the defendants are responsible for the missing of the Service Register of the plaintiff? 2. Whether there is any fault on the part of D3 andD4 in reconstructing the duplicate Service Register of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the damages as prayed for? The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs.A.1 to A.44. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1, a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.192 of 2001 was filed. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the following points were framed for consideration: 1. Whether there is any willful negligence on the part of the 1st defendant in missing of the service register of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff suffered mental agony and financial hardship due to the missing of his service register and due to get his pension and other retirement benefits at belated stage from the date of his retirement? 3. Whether the findings of the learned trial Judge issues 1 to 4 are sustainable under law and on facts? The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The second appeal was admitted on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed in Ground No.3. The root cause for institution of the suit is missing of service book. In the educational institutions, it is the duty of the Head Masters to keep the concerned records in their custody, unless there exists any other specific arrangements. The 1st respondent was the Head Master at a time when his service book was missing. The nature of the proceedings instituted by him throws any amount of doubt as to the bona fides of his claim. Instead of pursuing his remedies with the management or the Government for tracing the record or reconstructing the record, he has straight away approached this Court by instituting several proceedings. One fact, which needs to be taken note of, is that the service book was said to be missing from 08.04.1999, whereas the 1st respondent was granted an increment with effect from 01.08.1999. It is a matter of common knowledge that it is only after making necessary entry in the service record, that the competent authority would release increment. If the increment was released in August 1999, a presumption needs to the drawn to the effect that service book was available. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent did not adduce independent evidence in support of his plea. He was the only witness who has deposed. Neither any employee nor any official of the Government was examined to support his case. The documentary evidence comprised of the correspondence undertaken by him and the copies of the proceedings instituted before various authorities. Further, it was not suggested that the management would gain anything, if the service register of the 1st respondent is taken away from the records. It has already been mentioned that the missing of an important document like service register of any employee would equally reflect upon the head of the institution. Strictly speaking, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any benefit. However, taking into account the fact that the release of retirement benefits and sanction of pension was delayed almost for 2,3 years, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent can be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards tentative interest for the belated payment and not as the damages against he appellant. Hence, the second appeal is partly allowed reducing the amount to Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the amount which is deposited to the credit of the decree and the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.246 of 2011 Date: 21.11.2011 JSU