Regular Second Appeal No. 685 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 685 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2009 *** State of Punjab & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Dr. Bawa Ram Gupta .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay of 83 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. The State of Punjab has preferred the instant regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below dated 10.4.2007 and 23.7.2008 whereby in the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, it has been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff- respondent is entitled to receive the full amount of gratuity along with interest @12% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 30.11.2001 till actual payment, with a direction to the appellant-defendants to make the aforesaid payment within a period of three months. I have heard learned State counsel appearing for the appellants and have gone through the paper book carefully. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that both the Courts below concurrently held that deduction of Rs.1,21,509/- was illegally made from the amount of gratuity of the plaintiff-respondent amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-, paid to him with delay on 16.4.2004, especially when there was no representation on the part of the plaintiff to get his pay re-fixed, which according to the defendant-appellants, was fixed wrongly and the same was belied from the admission of DW.1 Chaman Lal, who Regular Second Appeal No. 685 of 2009 2 categorically admitted that respondent had not drawn any excess amount. Thus, while considering the case of one Dr. Rameshwar Chander, who also preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and was released the benefits after taking indemnity bond, it has been concurrently held that the Department was required to release the retiral benefits to the plaintiff on time, as per his request dated 17.3.2003 showing his intention to furnish the indemnity bonds etc. in lieu of release of his benefits. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 10,2009 Jiten