RSA No.2800 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2800 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 13.7.2011. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar ...... Appellant. versus Dalbir Singh ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Amrit Paul Singh, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.PURI . J. This is an appeal directed by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar against the judgment dated 1.3.2011 passed by Shri Tejwinder Singh, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 passed by Shri Aashish Abrol, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurdaspur was dismissed. RSA No.2800 of 2011 2 2. Briefly stated that Dalbir Singh, Junior Assistant, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to grant interest on delayed payment on the retrial benefits. The case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed in the University and retired on superannuation on 31.5.2004. The plaintiff was paid GPF amounting to Rs.4,14,146/- vide cheque dated 15.12.2004 i,e, after delay of seven months and paid a sum of Rs.1,46,550/- vide cheque dated 13.6.2005 after about one year without any justifiable cause. The plaintiff urged that he was not paid contribution CPF for the month of April and May, 2004 whereas the contribution was made by him. 3. On notice, defendant/appellant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and pleaded that amounts were paid in due time after obtaining sanction and there is no lapse of the University. 4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD. 5. Relief. 5. In order to substantiate his case plaintiff himself appeared as his own witness as PW-1 whereas in defence defendant examined Amarjit Singh as DW-1 and closed the evidence. RSA No.2800 of 2011 3 6. The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.2 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue Nos.3 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In view of above finding on all the issues plaintiff was held entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of GPF amounting to Rs.4,14,146/- from 1.6.2004 till 15.12.2004 and interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.1,46,550/- from 1.6.2004 till 13.6.2005 after adjustment of Rs.2827/- paid to the plaintiff during pendency of the suit. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree, dated 22.8.2008, the defendant/appellant filed first appeal which was decided by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 1.3.2011 and the same was dismissed. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 and dated 1.3.2011, the defendant/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 9. The defendant/appellant in para No.10 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following law points are involved in the present appeal :- 1) Whether the learned trial court has not granted extra interest to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of 6% per annum on the G.P.F. amount of Rs.4,14,146/- w.e.f. 1.6.2004 till 15.12.2004 and further extra interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the C.P.F. amount of Rs.1,46,550/- w.e.f. 01.06.2004 till 13.06.2005, wrongly, illegally and in violation of the applicable University Statutes 2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff(respondent) has not been wrongly partly decreed with costs to the extent of payment of the said extra interest on C.P.F. & G.P.F.? RSA No.2800 of 2011 4 3) Whether the findings of the learned trial Court regarding payment of the aforesaid extra interest to the plaintiff- respondent are not totally wrong and illegal, and hence liable to be set aside? 4) Whether, accordingly, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. Lower Appellate Court are not liable to be set aside ? 10. The only point urged during the course of argument is that both the Courts below have committed error in as much as the amount of interest has been granted in addition to the statutory rate of interest. The learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate how the extra rate of interest has been allowed by the trial Court. Needless to say that plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 6% on the delayed payments on which statutory interest on GPF and CPF has not been granted. 11. The points raised above are not the question of law muchless the substantial questions of law. 12. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 13 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 13, 2011 sv