R.S.A. No. 2227 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2227 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.7.2010 ... Municipal Corporation, Patiala and others ................Appellants vs. Ranja Ram .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate for Sh. Vinish Singla, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. This is an appeal directed by Municipal Corporation, Patiala, against the judgment dated 19.9.2009 passed by Sh. K.S. Cheema, Additional District Judge, Patiala (Fast Track Court), vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment dated 19.9.2007 passed by Ms. Jatinder Kaur, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, was dismissed. The case of the plaintiff – Ranja Ram, is that he joined as Truck Helper with Municipal Committee, Patiala and retired on 31.7.2002. His date of birth is 22.7.1942. The department has not granted pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to plaintiff, inspite of the fact that he superannuated as per order No. 1623 dated 19.11.2001. R.S.A. No. 2227 of 2010 -2- On put to notice, defendants, now appellants, filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit; that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit; that no notice under Section 396 of PMC Act, 1976 has been served before filing the suit. It is admitted that plaintiff has retired on 31.7.2002. The plaintiff was required to submit 4 passport size photographs alongwith application duly signed by him on prescribed forms, but the plaintiff has not submitted any such applications/photographs to the defendant-Corporation to complete the required formalities and as such his pension case could not be proceeded. Corporation has made the payment of gratuity and leave encashment vide cheque No. 902140 dated 31.12.2002. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pensionary benefits? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. Plaintiff – Ranja Ram appeared has his own witness, whereas in rebuttal Jasdeep Singh, Junior Assistant, appeared as DW-1. Learned trial Court has taken issues No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 R.S.A. No. 2227 of 2010 -3- together. All these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and defendants were directed to make the payment of arrears of pensionary benefits within 3 months, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment, the defendants filed the Ist appeal. The same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (Fast Track Court), vide judgment dated 19.9.2009. Still feeling dissatisfied with both the above said judgments, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellants. Appellants in paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of appeal, have mentioned that following questions of law have arisen for adjudication by this Court:- i) Whether the impugned orders dated 19.9.2007 and 19.9.2009 passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, void and passed without application of judicious mind? ii)Whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to relief which is not prayed for by him in his plaint/suit? iii)Whether the interest @ 12% per annum awarded to the plaintiff/respondent is on the higher side? The main stress of learned counsel for the appellants is that both the Courts below have allowed the plaintiff the pensionary benefits from the date of joining, whereas the said relief was not specifically claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is further R.S.A. No. 2227 of 2010 -4- contended that interest @ 12% per annum on pensionary benefits is on higher side. I have carefully considered the said submission of counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record of the case. From the bare reading of the file, no substantial question of law has arisen. The questions of law mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of appeal, as detailed above, do not exist at all. It is settled law that a Government employee is entitled to draw the pension in respect of service rendered by him i.e. from the date of joining till superannuation. Both the Courts below have simply allowed the relief to that extent. The interest of 12% is payable on the delayed payment and that cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. The grant of pension is not a charity but the legal right of the employee. No infirmity has been pointed out by counsel for the appellants in the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 7.7.2010 Judge chugh