IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4760 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2011. Constable Niranjan Singh No.263. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Punjab and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 01.06.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 02.08.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala decreeing suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.4760 of 2009 Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff filed suit for a decree for declaration that retirement of appellant-plaintiff at the age of 55 years by respondents-defendants is illegal and that he is entitled for pensionery benefits of 3 years and 2 months as he was to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents- defendants denying the fact that he was to retire at the age of 60 years. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellant-appellant. However, appeal filed by respondents-defendants was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and the suit of appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Learned first appellate Court has given sufficient reasons in reversing the finding recorded by learned trial Court as the same was not in accordance with the facts. In this case, appellant-plaintiff has admittedly given writing, Ex.D3 that he wanted to work only upto the age of 55 years and sought voluntary retirement. Hence, as per his request he was retired at the age of 55 years. He has challenged the said order of retirement, which was passed on his own request, after the expiry of period of 13 years. The ground for challenge is, that the age of superannuation in his case was 60 years. However, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge that when he himself requested for retirement on attaining the age of 55 years and thereafter, he remained silent for 13 years, it cannot be said that 2 RSA No.4760 of 2009 the impugned order passed by respondents-defendants retiring him at the age of 55 years, is bad in law. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in reversing the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Finding recorded by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis- appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 13, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3