RSA No.1433 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1433 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Punjab State Electricity Board and another .....Appellants Vs. Gopi Ram ....Respondent .... Present : Mr.Chetan Dayal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. ... RSA No.3524 of 2008 Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...Appellants Vs. Gurmit Singh ..... ....Respondent Present : Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the respondent. ... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.1433 of 2008 and 3524 of 2008 as similar questions arise for adjudication. The Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board') challenges judgements and decrees dated 18.1.2005 and 29.11.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur and the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, decreeing the plaintiff- RSA No.1433 of 2008 2 respondent's suit by holding that he is entitled to count his military service as duty performed with the Board while calculating gratuity and dismissing their appeal. The respondent admittedly served in the army from 30.1.1962 to 31.12.1983. He joined service with the appellants, as a Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 19.12.1984 and retired on 30.4.2001. While joining the service with the appellants, it was ordered that his pay would be protected, if he deposits the gratuity received from the army. The respondent admittedly deposited Rs.7071/- being the amount of gratuity received from the army. On his retirement from the Board, gratuity was paid for the service rendered with the board. Aggrieved by denial of gratuity for the period of military service, the respondent filed a suit. The appellants opposed the prayer in the suit by asserting that as his pay alone was protected, he was not entitled to include his military service for the purpose of calculating gratuity. The trial Court, after considering the matter in its entirety relied upon instructions Ex.D-1 to hold that as the respondent had deposited gratuity received for his military service, the appellants were obliged to consider military service for the purpose of calculating gratuity, payable to the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent's pay alone was protected and as a result, he was drawing salary higher than the salary drawn by other Lower Division Clerks. The mere fact that he deposited gratuity received from army authorities, would not entitle him to RSA No.1433 of 2008 3 count his military service, while computing the amount of gratuity payable to him. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the instructions Ex.D-1 duly adopted and issued by the Board clearly postulate that if upon re-employment, gratuity received from army authorities is deposited with the civil authority, an employee would be entitled to count military service while computing the amount of gratuity payable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. As noticed herein above, the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have held that after the respondent joined the appellants, he was directed to deposit the gratuity received from the army and on his doing so, his pay was protected. The Courts below thereafter placed reliance upon the instructions Ex.D-1, to decree the suit and dismiss the appeal. The instructions Ex.D-1 provide that if an ex-serviceman deposits gratuity paid by army authorities with the civil authority, he would be entitled to count his military service for the purpose of calculating gratuity payable upon retirement from civil service. The submission made by counsel for the appellants that the instructions Ex.D-1, issued by the State were not adopted by the Board is entirely misplaced. The instructions have been led into evidence and relied upon by the Board and even otherwise, no such point was urged before the Courts below. There is, therefore, no warrant for the argument that instructions were not adopted by the Board. As a result, the findings recorded by the Courts below that the respondent is entitled to gratuity by counting his military service, does not call for any interference. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for RSA No.1433 of 2008 4 consideration, the appeal is dismissed. 11.12.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE