R.S.A. No. 2963 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2963 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.05.2009 Gulzar Singh ....appellant versus State of Punjab and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 8760-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A. No. 2963 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking declaration that he was entitled to salary from May, 1992 to August 1993, March, 1994 to December, 1996 and September, 1998 till date, and also the difference of salary on account of 5th Pay Commission and bonus for the year 1994 to 1998 along with other perks admissible from time to time with interest @ 18% per annum on the payment due, stands dismissed. The defence was taken wherein it was pleaded that due to R.S.A. No. 2963 of 2008 (O&M) -2- absence of the plaintiff/appellant an order was passed that plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to any salary or other benefits. The plaintiff chose not to challenge the order. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly held that the plaint was totally vague. However, on account of difference of pay the amount calculated was deposited by the defendant/respondents in the treasury. The plaintiff/appellant had failed to receive it. The learned Courts have granted liberty to the plaintiff/appellant to get it from the treasury by moving appropriate application, as amount stands deposited in treasury. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is contrary to the service rules governing the plaintiff/appellant? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed is perverse?" In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to salary from May, 1992 to August 1993 and subsistence allowance thereafter on account of his suspension. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the service rules, an employee is entitled to salary. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Courts below. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that specific order was passed holding therein that the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to any salary, as he remained absent from duty. The R.S.A. No. 2963 of 2008 (O&M) -3- plaintiff/appellant never challenged the order and the suit filed was otherwise vague and lacked material particulars. No order of suspension was placed on record in support of pleadings that because of suspension, could not attend office. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below do not call for any interference. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 18, 2009 R.S.