Regular Second Appeal No.3574 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.9.2010 State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Vakil Singh (Retired Chowkidar) son of Sawan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that the suit filed by Vakil Singh, retired Chowkidar, son of Sawan Singh respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) against the State of Punjab and its officers appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) for a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction was decreed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 2.9.2009, the operative part of which is as under:- “Keeping in view my detailed findings on Issue no.1 to 7 above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the benefit given to him as per policy i.e. Punjab Govt. National Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965 and he is also entitled for death-cum-retirement gratuity without any deduction alongwith interest at the rate of 18% PA from the defendants which has been wrongly withheld by the defendants and the defendants are directed to release the same within three months from today alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date when that amount became due till the date of Regular Second Appeal No.3574 of 2010 2 realization. Decree sheet be prepared.” 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the first appellate Court. However, the liberty was granted to them to re-consider the case of the plaintiff in this regard after issuance of proper notice to him and may pass fresh order accordingly, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.4.2010. 3. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 4. Having heard the learned State counsel, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 5. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff was enrolled in the army on 1.4.1963 during the first emergency. He was discharged from the army on 1.3.1980. He joined the Punjab Government service on 14.9.1991 and retired on 31.3.2004. The plaintiff was granted increments in ex-servicemen category, who joined military service during existence of first National Emergency under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965/Policy (for short “the relevant Rules”). It is a matter of fact that the plaintiff never misrepresented, nor he played any fraud to avail increments under the relevant Rules/Policy. It is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiff was retired from service on 31.3.2004. His pension case was finalized and the defendants issued last pay certificate and no due certificate without any objection, but strange enough, the defendants did not release and proposed to effect the recoveries from the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity from the plaintiff, without any legal basis. 6. The learned State counsel did not point out as to how the appellant- defendants are competent to effect such recoveries in lieu of increments duly granted to the plaintiff under the relevant Rules. The grant of gratuity and other retiral benefits is not a bounty, but hard earned amount, which cannot be withheld Regular Second Appeal No.3574 of 2010 3 by the defendants, without any legal and cogent basis. Moreover, in view of the liberty granted, the appellant-defendants cannot possibly be said to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Ist Appellate Court in any manner. 7. In this manner, to me, the Courts below have rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiff and negatived the plea of the defendants. Hence, the contrary arguments of the learned State counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned State counsel, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of State, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 9. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the well-articulated and well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is entitled to increments and amount of gratuity, in view of the relevant Rules/Policy and the defendants cannot withdraw the same benefit after his retirement. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 10. Meaning thereby, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned Regular Second Appeal No.3574 of 2010 4 judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned State counsel. 12. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. 7.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge