RSA No. 3481 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3481 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.7.2009 Makhan Singh ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.S. Virk, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction claiming pensionary benefits i.e., gratuity; leave encashment and GPF amount, has been dismissed. The plaintiff was working as a Junior Engineer and attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2003. The plaintiff claimed that a sum of Rs.6,06.535/- is said to be outstanding against the plaintiff, but actually no such amount is due against the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed a direction to the respondents to release the remaining pensionary benefits. In the written statement, it was pointed out that the plaintiff has caused loss to the State worth Rs.17,64,511.62. Three cases have been RSA No. 3481 of 2006 (2) decided by the competent authority and the remaining are in process as the plaintiff is not cooperating. Learned trial Court found on the basis of affidavit Exhibit DA that a sum of Rs.7,51,511.62 is recoverable from the plaintiff. The charge- sheet and show-cause notices have been served upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any decree for mandatory injunction. In appeal, it was found that against the orders of recovery passed by the departmental authorities, the appeals were filed, but the same stand dismissed. The orders passed in appeal are not subject matter of challenge in the present suit. In view of the said fact, the appeal was also dismissed. It is, thus, apparent that the retiral benefits consisting of gratuity and leave encashment have been withheld on account of recovery orders passed against the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has not challenged the orders of recovery before the Civil Court, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 15.7.2009 ds