IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 2947 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 24, 2008 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ANR. ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JOGINDER KAUR .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Brar, Advocate, for the appellants. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the appellant-defendant to release the pay of the plaintiff in the pay scale of Rs.1650-2925 plus usual allowances as admissible to Government employees from January, 1995 to December, 1996 minus Rs.50,000/- already received. The trial Court, after considering the evidence and the arguments, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff was appointed as a RSA 2947 of 2007 2 Social Studies teacher in the Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Muktsar, in the grade of Rs.1650-2925 plus allowances as admissible and had indeed worked from January, 1995 to December, 1996, but the salary for the said period was not paid. The defendants' admitted that 95% grant was to be released by the Punjab Education Department and the School had to pay only 5% of the total pay and allowances as the School was Government aided and affiliated. The case set up by the appellant- defendants was that the Managing Committee had forwarded the case of the plaintiff for approval to the District Education Officer, however, the District Education Officer imposed certain conditions and returned the file for removal of objections. The Managing Committee failed to remove the objections and approval from the District Education Officer could not be obtained. It has been found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff was not at fault as it was the duty of the Managing Committee to get the objections removed and dues released. On such finding, the suit has been decreed as the plaintiff has been entitled to recover the salary for the said period. Issue No.2 was pressed with regard to limitation. It has been found that the plaintiff was not at fault as the objections had to be removed by the Management. The correspondence was pending between the District Education Officer and the Management and the matter was yet pending in the office of the District Education Officer, Muktsar. For this reason, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be held to be beyond limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that for the RSA 2947 of 2007 3 claim that arose in 1995-96, the suit has been instituted in the year 2001 and, therefore, the same is barred. From a perusal of the facts and considerations noticed above, I am of the opinion that the appellant cannot shift the blame on the plaintiff. The plaintiff served the appellant-Management, which fact is not denied. The dues of the appellant are also not disputed. It is a matter between the Management and the District Education Officer to get the file cleared to get 95% aid from the Government. Simply because the Management delayed the release of grant by not getting the objections removed, the issue of limitation cannot be agitated against the plaintiff. Getting the approval from the Education department was the responsibility of the Management. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the findings returned on issue No.2. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Appeal dismissed. January 24, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE