R.S.A. No. 2600 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2600 of 2007 Date of decision: September 11, 2008 Ram Dev ..Appellant v. Union of India and others .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant-plaintiff is in appeal before this Court having failed in both the Courts below in a suit filed by him for rendition of accounts. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff retired as Head Constable from 53 Battalion, BSF, Badmer, Rajasthan on 28.2.1979. He was granted pension which he, admittedly, is receiving regularly. However, seeking rendition of accounts with regard to pension and other benefits, the suit was instituted on 9.11.1998, nearly 20 years after his retirement. The claim in the suit was that the appellant-plaintiff in fact, retired as Head Constable but he was being paid pension as a Constable, he was to be issued Railway tickets for journey back home which was not issued at the time of his retirement and for which he had to spend Rs. 2,000/-, the dress allowance as the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to at the time of retirement was not paid, he was not given medal for his having participated in 1965 and 1971 wars and further that the claim of medical reimbursement was not dealt with. As far as the claim of amount on account of railway tickets, kit, medical reimbursement and the medal, the Court found that the claim was highly belated as the suit was filed nearly 20 years after the retirement. Even otherwise, nothing was produced on record by the appellant-plaintiff to prove that his family was entitled to railway ticket on retirement. Even R.S.A. No. 2600 of 2007 [2] the kit was retained by the appellant-plaintiff at the time of retirement, as was proved from document Ex. PA. As far as claim for pension is concerned, on the basis of evidence produced on record by the respondents-defendants as against the oral statement of the appellant-plaintiff, the Court found that the appellant- plaintiff was being paid pension as Head Constable, which was calculated on the basis of his last pay drawn and no fault as such was found even in the calculation of the pension paid to the appellant-plaintiff. Once all the factual aspects have been gone into by the learned Court below on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, especially when the appellant-plaintiff could not lead any evidence to substantiate his claim, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The present appeal raises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.9.2008 mk