Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 Rajbir Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 9906-C of 2010 Issue notice of the application. On asking of the Court, Mr. Rattan Sidhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the non- applicants/respondents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 The appellant/plaintiff, having failed in two rounds of litigation, has approached this Court by filing the present regular second appeal. The appellant has filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants that he is entitled to service and retiral benefits including grant of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 (O&M) 2 etc. from the date of acceptance of his retracted resignation received on 8.2.1984 and all other arrears thereof along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date the same became due till its payment. Furthermore, he is entitled to consequential benefits till the year 2012 the day, he had to attain the age of superannuation. It was pleaded in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff was appointed as a Constable in Haryana police on 28.4.1973 in District Hisar. After his appointment, the appellant/plaintiff performed his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity. However, during the course of employment, the appellant/plaintiff suffered certain psychiatric problems and underwent treatment in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Due to his disturbed state of mind, the appellant submitted his resignation on 6.2.1984. The resignation was accepted by defendant No.4-Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, on 8.2.1984. Aggrieved against the acceptance of resignation, the appellant had submitted his representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, on 12.3.1984, but he had not heard the result thereof. It was further submitted that on the day when the appellant had submitted his resignation, he had completed 11 years of service, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits. Upon notice, the defendant/State of Haryana has filed a reply. It is submitted that on receipt of resignation of the appellant, after expiry of three months notice period, it was accepted and acted upon. Since the appellant has not completed ten years of service, he was not entitled to any pension and furthermore, amount of General Provident Fund was disbursed to the plaintiff and no request was received for withdrawal of resignation. Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 (O&M) 3 The trial Court held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to produce any document wherefrom withdrawal of resignation could be inferred. The trial Court further held that the oral version is not sufficient to hold that the resignation was withdrawn. Furthermore, in the present case, the resignation was accepted on 8.2.1984 and the suit was filed after the lapse of 20 years thereof i.e. on 7.10.2004. The trial Court has further held that on the day the resignation was submitted, the appellant had only served the State for a period of 9 years and 14 days. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court accepted the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has served the State for 10 years, 9 months and 10 days. The lower Appellate Court has held as under:- “6...If period of that leave i.e. 264 days is added, the service of the appellant would add upto more than 10 years. He was, therefore, qualified to receive pension...” The finding given by the lower Appellate Court that the appellant is entitled to pension, has not been assailed by the State by filing any appeal. However, the finding of the trial Court that suit is barred by limitation has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, who further held that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to place on record any document to show that the resignation was withdrawn, suffers from no infirmity, especially when the suit was filed after the period of 20 years of the acceptance of resignation. Therefore, the appeal was also rightly dismissed. Regular Second Appeal No. 3377 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal especially when, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to formulate any question of law, much less a substantial one and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 16, 2011 “DK”