R.S.A. No. 3058 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3058 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2011 Raghubir Singh ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. S.k. Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had retired from his service on 30.6.2000. The plaintiff was working as Assistant Food Supply Officer with the defendants. The plaintiff was entitled to receive all his retiral and pensionary benefits at the time of his retirement. However, the retiral benefits were not released to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that during his service tenure plaintiff had been charge sheeted on many occasions. Plaintiff was entitled to all the benefits but some departmental proceedings R.S.A. No. 3058 of 2010 (O&M) 2 were pending against the plaintiff with other officials qua shortage of ` 49,07,854/-. Due to this reason the retiral benefits of the plaintiff had been withheld. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,44,026/- from the defendants ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2006, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 % per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits till date of payment and 9 % per annum interest from the date of institution of the suit till the decision of the case and 6 % from the date of decree till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2009. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff retired from service on 30.6.2000. A sum of ` 1,08,740/- was paid to the plaintiff vide draft dated 31.10.2002. R.S.A. No. 3058 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Another sum of ` 1,08,432/- had been paid to the plaintiff vide draft dated 30.8.2004 on account of gratuity and remaining amount of gratuity of ` 20,131/- was paid to the plaintiff vide draft dated 16.9.2004. The case of the plaintiff was that no departmental proceedings were pending against him. The plaintiff, while appearing in the witness box, denied knowledge qua of the pendency of departmental proceedings with regard to shortage to the tune of ` 49,07,854/-. On the other hand, the defendants led evidence to the effect that due to shortage of wheat and quality cut amounting to ` 49,07,854/- departmental proceedings were pending against the plaintiff as well as other officials. Due to this reason the pensionary benefits of the plaintiff had been withheld. Vide order dated 21.3.2003, plaintiff was ordered to be charge-sheeted for having caused loss to the department. Thereafter, the proceedings were dropped vide order dated 11.7.2003 in appeal filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge has righty held that the action of the defendants in withholding the pensionary benefits was not unjustified. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 1, 2011 Anand