RSA No.2710 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2710 of 1999 Date of Decision:23.04.2009 Amarjit Singh ....appellant Versus State of Punjab & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Amarjeet Singh, appellant in person Mr.Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears of pay and allowances pertaining to the period from 01.02.1981 to 28.02.1990 which were paid on 02.05.1991 along with the future interest. The suit was contested by the defendants raising various legal objections. On merits, it was submitted that probation of the period was extended by one year due to his bad service record and he passed departmental examination in December 1973 and therefore he was not entitled to promotion prior to that and after allowing him to cross efficiency bar w.e.f.01.02.1979 his pay was regularized under the rules. Vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.1996 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Jalandhar, suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and defendants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears and allowances pertaining to the period from 01.02.1981 to 28.02.1990 paid to the plaintiff on 02.05.1991. RSA No.2710 of 1999 2 Plaintiff as well as defendants challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing separate appeals which were dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.11.1998. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. I have heard the appellant who is appearing in person and have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. The only claim raised in this appeal by the appellant is that he is entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% per annum instead of 12% per annum as held by the Courts below. The appellant was unable to show from the record of the case as to how he was entitled to grant of a higher rate of interest. No perversity was shown in the impugned judgment and decree. I find no reason to interfere in the discretion used by the Courts below in the matter of grant of interest on the delayed payments made to the appellant. Neither any substantial question of law was raised in the appeal nor any such substantial question of law has been shown to be arisen in this appeal during the course of arguments. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 23.04.2009 neenu