RSA No. 2713 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2713 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: October 12, 2010 Government of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Om Parkash Waliya ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. AS Sullar, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No. 8236 C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 2713 of 2010 Heard. The plaintiff/respondent filed suit for declaration that he is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment and for directing the defendants/appellants to pay the sum of Rs. 33,500/- as such. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2003 and the amount of gratuity was paid to him on 19.8.2004, whereas the leave of encashment was paid to him in January, 2004. RSA No. 2713 of 2010 2 The prayer of the plaintiff was opposed on the ground that he himself failed to submit the pension papers in time. He submitted those papers on 20.5.2003 and were forwarded to the Accountant General, Haryana, on 29.5.2003 and after those were processed the same were received back in the office on 29.10.2003. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1008. He preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree, which was accepted by the first appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2010 and simple interest @ 18% was allowed on gratuity alone from 1.12.2003 till the date of payment i.e. 19.8.2004. According to the learned State counsel, the plaintiff himself was to blame for not submitting the pension papers in time. Therefore, the court should not have allowed the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and, according to him, the substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is: Whether the interest can be allowed on such delayed payment ? The first appellate court duly took into consideration the delay of three months on the part of the plaintiff in submitting the documents of pension and due concession for the delay was given to the defendants. In that eventuality, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 12, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE