-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 11, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. Shangara Singh Pannu ... Appellant VERSUS Punjab State and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Gangeshwar Singh Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, Engineer – in – Chief, P.W.D (B & R), Patiala, in person. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Shangara Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to receive the amount of his retiral benefits i.e -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. gratuity, leave encashment and G.P.F with compoundable interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date these benefits became due and, further, for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release these benefits was dismissed. I have heard Mr.Gangeshwar Singh Walia, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab, appearing for the State and Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 and have gone through the records of the case. Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, Engineer–in– Chief, P.W.D (B & R), Patiala, who was issued notice of contempt vide order passed by this Court on 28.10.2010 to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is present in person. He has also been heard. The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer in the respondent-Department. He retired from service on 31.5.2002 after attaining the age of superannuation. Complete retiral benefits had not been released to the appellant by the respondent- Department leading to the instant litigation at the instance of the appellant. The appellant also alleged that he had been declined proficiency step-up after 24 years of service wrongly. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The order dated 21.6.2002 (Exhibit D.6), vide which the appellant was declined the benefit of proficiency step-up after completion of 24 years of service, was not challenged by the appellant while filing the instant suit. It has also not been shown that the appellant had chosen the other forum of representing before the competent authority against order dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure D.6). The appellant, in his deposition in Court as P.W.1, admitted that he had received General Provident Fund amounting to Rs.3,26,058/- and that he was receiving provisional pension as per rules. Departmental proceedings were pending against the appellant at the time of his retirement. The respondent- Department pleaded that the case of the appellant for releasing him regular pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity had been submitted to the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 3.10.2002. However, the office of the Accountant General, Punjab, vide letter dated 6.1.2003 returned the case of the appellant with regard to releasing him regular pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the department directing it (respondent-Department) to resubmit the same after completion of departmental inquiries against the appellant. However, the appellant did not implead the Accountant General, Punjab, as a party-defendant in this case despite the fact that an -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. objection had been raised by the respondent-Department that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below held that the suit of the appellant was bad for non-joinder of Accountant General, Punjab as a party-defendant. It has been held by both the Courts below that at the time of retirement, proceedings for recovery of Rs.30,294.86 on account of financial irregularities in the performance of official duties by the appellant were pending against him. This amount was recoverable from the appellant on account of the allegation against him that there was shortage of material and the appellant had engaged labour without sanction of the competent authority etc., as had been intimated by the Executive Engineer, Central Works Department, Pathankot. Amount recoverable from the appellant had been intimated to him vide letter dated 16.5.2002. The appellant had retired on 31.5.2002. Thus, a fortnight before his retirement, the appellant had been intimated that Rs.30,294.86 were recoverable from him on account of financial irregularities committed by him in the performance of his official duties. Under the circumstances, the ground taken by the appellant before this Court in the `Ground of Appeals' that on the eve of his retirement i.e 31.5.2002, no departmental proceedings were pending against him, is not correct. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and without dilating any further on the matter, including the aspect whether the officials of the respondent-Department are to be held responsible for the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 108 of 2009. appellant, it can not be said that the retiral benefits had not been released to the appellant on account of mala fide attitude of the departmental officials. Once I have so held, Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, Engineer – in – Chief, P.W.D (B & R), Patiala cannot be held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the rule issued to him is discharged. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 11, 2011. JUDGE ak