RSA No.4003 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4003 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2011 Om Parkash .....Appellant v. Government of Haryana through Director and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 26.7.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 22.4.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narnaul, dismissing the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Appellant-plaintiff has been working as a Field Worker under District Malaria Officer and Civil Surgeon, Narnaul. He absented himself without any leave. No casual leave was due to him. He did not apply for any earned leave. Lateron he applied for earned leave vide application Ex.D2, dated 20.3.2007 and thereafter, earned leave was sanctioned to him and admittedly salary for the said period amounting to `2264/- was RSA No.4003 of 2010(O&M) -2- deposited in his account. Only his claim for `3694/-, allegedly spent by him on correspondence with his department was not granted to him by the department, and the said plea was also not accepted by both the Courts below. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below 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 misappreciation 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. 20.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge