IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 Union of India and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Shri Anil Rathee, Advocate. Versus Smt.Shama Kaur and others. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 10.5.2006 and 15.1.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and Additional District Judge (I), Bhiwani (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of Harnam Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives,who are respondents herein) was decreed and the appeal of the defendants- appellants was dismissed. A suit for declaration was filed by Harnam Singh pleading therein that he joined the Indian Army on 10.12.1941 and retired as Subedar R.S.A.No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... from Rajputana Rifles on 10.12.1969; that at the time of his retirement, he was given basic pension at the rate of Rs.165/- per month; that he was re- employed in Central Industrial Security Force with effect from 23.1.1970; that his request for commutation of Rs.65/- of his pension for 15 years was allowed with effect from 12.7.1972; that on completion of fifteen years, the commuted portion of his pension was restored vide letter dated 24.7.1987; that after the restoration of the commuted portion of his pension, the same was to be added in his basic pension, that the appellants had given an intimation about the restoration of the commuted pension with effect from 15.4.1987, but despite repeated requests made by him, the same was not paid to him; that with effect from 1.1.1986, he was entitled to receive basic pension at the rate of Rs.1670/-per month on account of revision thereof, but he was paid Rs.451/- only; and that his pension was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 instead of 1.1.1986 with letter dated 16.3.2001 and was paid at the rate of Rs.3775/- plus dearness allowance. He, therefore, prayed that it be declared that he is entitled to receive his commuted amount of basic pension at the rate of Rs.65/- per month from 23.6.1987 onwards till the date of payment along with dearness allowance and interest etc. It was further prayed that he be held entitled to get Rs.65/- added to his basic pension and get arrears of pension with effect from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1996 at the rate of Rs.1219/- per month along with dearness allowance and other allowances as well as interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Still further, it was prayed that he should be given interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of revised pension and arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till R.S.A.No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... April,2001. As a consequential relief, it was prayed that the appellants be directed to release the aforesaid benefits. Upon notice, the appellants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. They denied the claim of Harnam Singh and pleaded that for restoration of his commuted pension, he was advised to contact his D.D.P.D.O. It was further pleaded that simultaneously, he was intimated about his entitlement for the revised pension at the rate of Rs.540/- per month with effect from 1.1.1986 onwards. It was averred that the pension disbursing authority of Harnam Singh, i.e., the Punjab National Bank, Loharu intimated the appellants that his pension had been revised as per the recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission and he was receiving the same. It was further averred that letter dated 22.9.1988 was also written to the D.D.P.D.O., Bhiwani for issuance of necessary instructions for making ex-gratia payment to Harnam Singh with effect from 1.9.1983. The appellants pleaded that a number of letters were written to the Punjab National Bank, Loharu to take necessary action for restoration of commuted portion of the pension to Harnam Singh and for the first on 18.8.1994, the said bank sought the original P.P.O. number as the same had been lost. A duplicate P.P.O. Number was got issued with instructions to the Punjab National Bank, Loharu to restore the commuted portion of pension to Harnam Singh. Thereafter the said bank informed the appellants that Harnam Singh was getting his due pension and arrears have also been paid to him. The revision of the pension was also made in accordance with the instructions and intimation was given to Harnam Singh. On the basis of R.S.A.No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... these averments, the appellants had prayed that the suit be dismissed. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration with consequential relief as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the present suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that there was no dispute that Harnam Singh was entitled to restoration of the commuted pension at the rate of Rs.65/- per month and consequent revision of his pension as per the government instructions. Therefore, it decreed the suit of Harenam Singh for grant of necessary relief as prayed for along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 25.6.1987. In appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. This has resulted in filing of the present appeal in which the learned counsel for the Appellants has argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and are liable to be set aside as the same are based on complete misreading of evidence on record. R.S.A.No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) -5- .... I have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and find that the same is totally misconceived. From the perusal of the record, it does not transpire that there is misreading of evidence. Both the Courts have concluded that there was no serious dispute with the claim of Harnam Singh that he was entitled to the restoration of commuted portion of pension with effect from 5.6.1987. There was sufficient material on record that despite repeated reminders, the claim of Harnam Singh was not settled. The Courts below have rightly noticed that there were numerous documents to show that prolonged communications had been exchanged between Harnam Singh and the appellants. It continued up to January,2002. The claim of Harnam Singh was, therefore, withheld for no apparent reason. Since there is no material from which it can be inferred that Harnam Singh was not entitled to this commuted pension and consequent revision of his pension, the Courts below have rightly concluded that he was entitled to this benefit. There is no misreading of evidence so as to hold that the findings of the Courts below are erroneous. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected. The learned counsel for the appellants has formulated the following questions of law in paragraph 8 of the grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether the Pension Disbursement Authority is a necessary party in the present case particularly when delay in payment was not on account of any action or inaction on the part of the Pension Sanctioning Authority? R.S.A.No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) -6- .... 2. Whether the plaintiff is duty bound to prove on record that the commuted portion of pension after 15.4.87 was not paid to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the authorities are bound to pay the amount contrary to the instructions issued by Government of India from time to time and whether if some correspondence were going on, it does not mean that commuted portion of pension was not restored and paid to the plaintiff? 4. Whether the suit was bad for joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? In my opinion, none of the above questions can be treated as substantial question of law for the reason that there was no serious dispute regarding the grant of restoration of commuted portion of pension to Harnam Singh after 15.4.1987 and the appellants had failed to show any material that the same was withheld on account of some valid ground,much less the government instructions which have been referred to in the written statement. Since there is no substantial question of law which arises for determination in this appeal, the same is dismissed being without any merit. May 08,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge