Regular Second Appeal No.1441 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1441 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 17, 2009 State of Haryana and Others ...........Appellants Versus Satya Narain Jindal AFSO (Retd) ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sukhant Gupta, Additional Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Satya Narain Jindal filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release his gratuity. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007.Aggrieved by the same, the State went up in appeal and in appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were modified to the extent that the rate of interest was reduced from 18% per annum to 12% per annum by the District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that the plaintiff was serving as Assistant Food and Supply Officer with the defendants. He retired on 31.10.2003. The defendants failed to release his retiral benefits inter-alia leave encashment, gratuity, pension Regular Second Appeal No.1441 of 2009 (O&M) 2 commutation etc. Only G.P.F. and pension encashmnent were released. Without any reason when the defendants had withheld his retiral benefits the plaintiff served the defendants with notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. After service of that notice the defendants released the leave encashment and commuted pensionary benefits but failed to release the gratuity. Accordingly, the plaintiff brought the present suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release his gratuity along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date it was withheld. 3. The defendants in their written statement admitted that the plaintiff had retired as Assistant Food and Supply Officer while serving under them. They pleaded that all his retiral benefits except an amount of Rs.1,35,224/- have been released. That amount out of gratuity had been withheld as the plaintiff had caused loss to the State while performing his duty. For that he was served charge-sheet under Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, hereafter referred to as the Rules. The plaintiff had filed reply thereto. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing. Before that opportunity was availed the plaintiff brought the present suit. In that way, the defendants contended that the suit was pre-mature. On merits it was further pleaded by the defendants that for the loss caused to the State the liability of the plaintiff was fixed to the extent of 20 per cent. That loss after calculation came to be Rs.1,29,786/-. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of the Rules for Regular Second Appeal No.1441 of 2009 (O&M) 3 causing that loss. That enquiry was still pending and,therefore, that amount of Rs.1,35,224/- has been withheld to make good that loss. With these averments, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendants have illegally detained the retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, legal encashment, pension etc. of the plaintiff?OPP 2. If 1st issue is proved, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction for the payment of abovesaid benefits?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff also entitled for interest at the rate of 24% per annum?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 6. Whether the Court fees paid is not sufficient?OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 8. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Admittedly, the plaintiff retired from service on 31.10.2003 while he was working as Assistant Food and Supply Officer. The case of the plaintiff is that payment of his retiral benefits had been illegally withheld by the defendants. However, the case of the defendants-State was Regular Second Appeal No.1441 of 2009 (O&M) 4 that the gratuity amounting to Rs.1,35,224/- had been withheld on account of pendency of an inquiry against the plaintiff. The allegations against the plaintiff were that he had caused loss to the tune of the aforesaid amount. However, in an inquiry conducted by the department, it was found that the plaintiff was not guilty and,thus, the verdicts in an inquiry have gone in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.1,35,224/- along with interest at the rate of 12%. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 17, 2009 arya