IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 307 of 2008 Date of Order: 18.09.2008 Smt. Sukhwant Kaur ...Appellant Versus Punjab State Irrigation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant, challenges the judgments and decrees passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Amritsar, dated 11.11.2005 and Additional District Judge,Amritsar, dated 06.01.2007, dismissing the suit and the appeal respectively. The appellant, filed a suit for declaration for release of the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum. The respondents opposed the prayer by asserting that all retiral benefits had been released before the filing of the suit and the delay if any in their release was caused by the appellant's husband. After considering the pleadings and the arguments, the learned trial Court held that there was no delay on the part of the department as the delay if any was on the part of the appellant's husband in submitting his pension papers and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal by affirming the findings returned by the trial Court. Regular Second Appeal No. 307 of 2008 -2- Counsel for the appellant submits that there was a delay of three years and two months in the release of gratuity, one year and nine months in the release of G.P.F. and four years in the release of the medical bills . It is submitted that the courts below committed an error in holding that the delay occurred on account of late submission of the pension papers by the appellant's husband. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. As noticed herein above, both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have concurrently held as a matter of fact that the delay in the finalisation of the retiral benefits was on the part of the appellant's late husband, who was head of the department and also the drawing & disbursing officer. Admittedly, the retiral benefits have been released. No argument has been advanced to detract from the correctness of the concurrent findings that the delay was caused by the appellant's late husband. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, therefore, do not call for any interference. Dismissed. September 18, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE