IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 548 of 2004 Date of Decision : May 3 , 2010 Jamal Singh …Appellant-plaintiff. v. P.S.E.B. & Anr. …Respondents-defendants. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). This is the plaintiff’s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No. 113/99, 65/96, titled as Jamal Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., seeking prayer of mandatory injunction was dismissed by the Sub Judge First Class, Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002. Plaintiff’s Civil Appeal No.135/2002 also stands dismissed by the District Judge, Mandi, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003. Thus, plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of fact. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Courts below committed illegality by ignoring the earlier judgment dated 8.7.1999 which has led to injustice? 2. Whether the Courts below were justified to decide the question regarding the pension payable to the appellant, an ex-serviceman, and on re- employment having retired as an employee of the Punjab Electricity Board, on the basis of the Rules as applicable in Himachal Pradesh?.” 3. Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, fairly states that substantial question of law No.1 does not arise for consideration at all. 4. Plaintiff retired from the Indian Army and took up a job with the Punjab State Electricity Board, defendant No.1. He served the Board for 17 years. Defendants did not release his pension, hence he filed a Civil Suit before the Sub Judge, which was subsequently withdrawn as the defendants assured him that necessary action would be taken in accordance with Law. Defendants fixed his pension at Rs.247/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The pension in fact had been earlier fixed @Rs.89/- per month w.e.f. 15.3.1984. Aggrieved of the same plaintiff filed a fresh suit. 5. In the suit the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the pension of the plaintiff was to be fixed at Rs.375/- per month basic plus all the admissible allowances instead of Rs.247/- from 1.1.1986 as alleged? ….OPP 3 2. If aforesaid issue is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the payment of arrears of pension as alleged? ……OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the monthly pension at the aforesaid rate? …….OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ……OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no legally enforceable cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? ...OPD 6.Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res- judicata as alleged? …OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties as alleged? …OPD 8. Relief. 6. Defendants have proved on record the Notifications (Ext.DW-1/A & Ext.DW-1/B) which are applicable to the employees of the Board. There is no dispute about the same. The fact that the plaintiff is actually receiving pension of a sum of Rs.1291/- from the Indian Army is also not disputed. Ext.DW- 1/A evidently shows that an employee would be entitled to a minimum pension @Rs.375/- per month. Notification (Ext.DW- 1/B) is also to the said effect. But however a combined reading of these Notifications shows that the Rules of minimum pension of Rs.375/- would apply only in the case where an employee is getting one pension. If however an employee is getting more than one pension, the monthly cap of Rs.375/- would automatically come into play. 4 7. In this view of the matter, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to pension at an enhanced rate of Rs.375/- per month. Plaintiff has not cross-examined the defendants on the question of applicability of the Rules (Ext.DW-1/A & Ext.DW-1/B). Plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved such fact. Hence, in my considered view, substantial question of law No.2 does not arises for consideration also. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. May 3, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.